ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2024
A multicenter study to evaluate the analytical precision by pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lessons learned from three approaches to digital pathology system validation at a large academic medical institution.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Roche Digital Pathology Dx whole slide imaging system is comparable to traditional microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Digital pathology systems (DPS) are emerging as capable technologies for clinical practice. Studies have analyzed pathologists' diagnostic concordance by comparing reviews of whole slide images (WSIs) to glass slides (e.g., accuracy). This observational study evaluated the reproducibility of pathologists' diagnostic reviews using the Aperio GT 450 DX under slightly different conditions (precision). Method: Diagnostic precision was tested in three conditions: intra-system (within systems), inter-system/site (between systems/sites), and intra- and inter-pathologist (within and between pathologists). A total of five study/reading pathologists (one pathologist each for intra-system, inter-system/site, and three for intra-pathologist/inter-pathologist analyses) were assigned to the respective sub-studies.A panel of 69 glass slides with 23 unique histological features was used to evaluate the WSI system's precision. Each glass slide was scanned to generate a unique WSI. From each WSI, the field of view (FOV) was generated (at least 2 FOVs/WSI), which included the selected features (1-3 features/FOV). Each pathologist reviewed the digital slides and identified which morphological features, if any, were present in each defined FOV. To minimize recall bias, an additional 12 wild card slides from different organ types were used for which FOVs were extracted. The pathologists also read these wild card slides FOVs; however, the corresponding feature identification was not included in the final data analysis. Results: Each measured endpoint met the pre-defined acceptance criteria of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) overall agreement (OA) rate being ≥85% for each sub-study. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the intra-system OA rate was 95.8%; for inter-system analysis, it was 94.9%; for intra-pathologist analysis, 92.4%, whereas for inter-pathologist analyses, the lower bound of the 95% CI of the OA was 90.6%. Conclusion: The study results indicate that pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX WSI system can precisely identify histological features that may be required for accurately diagnosing anatomic pathology cases.
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.