ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023
How, for whom, and in what contexts will artificial intelligence be adopted in pathology? A realist interview study.
Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep-Learning Solution Providing Molecular Marker Subtyping of Breast Cancer Whole Slide Images: Protocol for a UK Clinical Service Evaluation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Attitudes Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Conjoint Analysis Survey in Singapore.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in breast and gynecologic oncology: from molecular prediction to multimodal integration.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in genitourinary pathology.Histopathology · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Socialising artificial intelligence in diagnostic cellular pathology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Interpretable machine learning-based detection of coeliac disease.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- The Promise of AI for Image-Driven Medicine: Qualitative Interview Study of Radiologists' and Pathologists' Perspectives.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Human-machine interaction in computational cancer pathology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Review
- Stakeholder perspectives towards diagnostic artificial intelligence: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Are ChatGPT's Free-Text Responses on Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee Reliable and Useful?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is increasing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology to improve accuracy and efficiency. Studies of clinicians' perceptions of AI have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting further research is needed regarding integration into clinical practice. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' theories concerning how and in what contexts AI is likely to become integrated into pathology. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature review provided tentative theories that were revised through a realist interview study with 20 pathologists and 5 pathology trainees. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, the tentative theories fitted with interviewees' perceptions and experiences. Analysis focused on identifying the contextual factors that may support or constrain uptake of AI in pathology.
resultsInterviews highlighted the importance of trust in AI, with interviewees emphasizing evaluation and the opportunity for pathologists to become familiar with AI as means for establishing trust. Interviewees expressed a desire to be involved in design and implementation of AI tools, to ensure such tools address pressing needs, but needs vary by subspecialty. Workflow integration is desired but whether AI tools should work automatically will vary according to the task and the context.
conclusionsIt must not be assumed that AI tools that provide benefit in one subspecialty will provide benefit in others. Pathologists should be involved in the decision to introduce AI, with opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed concerning the evidence required to satisfy pathologists regarding the benefits of AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.