Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36405869›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022

The need for measurement science in digital pathology.

Marina Romanchikova, Spencer Angus Thomas, Alex Dexter, Mike Shaw, Ignacio Partarrieau, Nadia Smith, Jenny Venton, Michael Adeogun, David Brettle, Robert James Turpin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Digital neuropathology of neurodegenerative disorders: Foundations, research advances, and future directions.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Marina RomanchikovaNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Spencer Angus ThomasNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Alex DexterNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Mike ShawNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Ignacio PartarrieauNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Nadia SmithNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Jenny VentonNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Michael AdeogunNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
David BrettleLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS9 7TF, United Kingdom.
Robert James TurpinBritish Standards Institution, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pathology services experienced a surge in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digitalisation of pathology workflows can help to increase throughput, yet many existing digitalisation solutions use non-standardised workflows captured in proprietary data formats and processed by black-box software, yielding data of varying quality. This study presents the views of a UK-led expert group on the barriers to adoption and the required input of measurement science to improve current practices in digital pathology. Methods: With an aim to support the UK's efforts in digitalisation of pathology services, this study comprised: (1) a review of existing evidence, (2) an online survey of domain experts, and (3) a workshop with 42 representatives from healthcare, regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical industry, academia, equipment, and software manufacturers. The discussion topics included sample processing, data interoperability, image analysis, equipment calibration, and use of novel imaging modalities. Findings: The lack of data interoperability within the digital pathology workflows hinders data lookup and navigation, according to 80% of attendees. All participants stressed the importance of integrating imaging and non-imaging data for diagnosis, while 80% saw data integration as a priority challenge. 90% identified the benefits of artificial intelligence and machine learning, but identified the need for training and sound performance metrics.Methods for calibration and providing traceability were seen as essential to establish harmonised, reproducible sample processing, and image acquisition pipelines. Vendor-neutral data standards were seen as a "must-have" for providing meaningful data for downstream analysis. Users and vendors need good practice guidance on evaluation of uncertainty, fitness-for-purpose, and reproducibility of artificial intelligence/machine learning tools. All of the above needs to be accompanied by an upskilling of the pathology workforce. Conclusions: Digital pathology requires interoperable data formats, reproducible and comparable laboratory workflows, and trustworthy computer analysis software. Despite high interest in the use of novel imaging techniques and artificial intelligence tools, their adoption is slowed down by the lack of guidance and evaluation tools to assess the suitability of these techniques for specific clinical question. Measurement science expertise in uncertainty estimation, standardisation, reference materials, and calibration can help establishing reproducibility and comparability between laboratory procedures, yielding high quality data and providing higher confidence in diagnosis.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCalibrationDICOMDigital pathologyFAIR principlesMachine learningMetadataMetrologyStandardsWhole slide imaging

Identifiers

PMID36405869
PMCPMC9646441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.