Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36687527›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2023

Digital pathology implementation in a private laboratory: The CEDAP experience.

Inês Ferreira, Carlos Sachica Montenegro, Daniel Coelho, Maria Pereira, Sara da Mata, Sofia Carvalho, Ana Catarina Araújo, Carlos Abrantes, José Mário Ruivo, Helena Garcia and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. [Artificial intelligence for pathology-how, where, and why?]Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
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

11 authors.

Inês FerreiraGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Carlos Sachica MontenegroGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Daniel CoelhoGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Maria PereiraGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Sara da MataGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Sofia CarvalhoGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Ana Catarina AraújoGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Carlos AbrantesGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
José Mário RuivoGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Helena GarciaGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.
Rui Caetano OliveiraGermano de Sousa - Centro de Diagnóstico Histopatológico CEDAP, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The transition to digital pathology has been carried out by several laboratories across the globe, with some cases described in Portugal. In this article, we describe the transition to digital pathology in a high-volume private laboratory, considering the main challenges and opportunities. Material and methods: Our process started in 2020, with laboratory workflow adaptation and we are currently using a high-capacity scanner (Aperio GT450DX) to digitize slides at 20×. The visualization system, Aperio eSlide Manager WebViewer, is integrated into the Laboratory System. The validation process followed the Royal College of Pathologists Guidelines. Results: Regarding validation, the first phase detected an error rate of 6.8%, mostly due to digitization errors. Phase optimization and collaboration with technical services led to improvements in this process. In the second validation phase, most of the slides had the desired quality for evaluation, with only an error rate of 0.6%, corrected with a new scan. The interpathologist correlation had a total agreement rate of 96.87% and 3.13% partial agreement. Conclusion: The implementation and validation of digital pathology was a success, being ready for prime time. The total integration of all laboratory systems and the acquisition of new equipment will maximize their use, especially with the application of artificial intelligence algorithms.

Indexed as

Digital pathologyImplementationValidation

Identifiers

PMID36687527
PMCPMC9853351

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.