ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Digital Pathology Displays Under Pressure: Benchmarking Performance Across Market Grades.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual Evaluation of Hematoxylin & Eosin via Digital Pathology Survey (VEED) Project: Results from a Non-Inferiority Study of a Tabs-Based Staining Method.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The evolving role of DICOM in digital pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Review
- Toward a regional digital pathology network in Tuscany: current status and implementation roadmap.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Standardizing the pathologic assessment of HER2-(ultra)low breast cancer: insights from a national Italian project.Pathologica · 2025Article
- Digital neuropathology of neurodegenerative disorders: Foundations, research advances, and future directions.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- The Italian Portrait of Laboratory Information Systems in Pathology: The Ones We Have and the Ones We Would Like.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital pathology (DP) has transformed the practice of pathology by digitizing pathology glass slides, thereby enhancing diagnostic capabilities. In contrast to radiology, studies comparing the efficiency of DP monitors are limited. This work used a stress test that simulated DP sign-out in practice to evaluate the performance of medical-grade (MG) and consumer off-the-shelf (COTS) displays. Four displays, including three MG and one COTS, were assessed for luminance, contrast ratio, accuracy, and image uniformity. Key metrics, such as luminance uniformity and maximum brightness, were evaluated during a 1-month period that simulated use to reflect an 8-h work day. MG displays outperformed COTS in critical parameters, even though consumer displays were satisfactory for diagnostic purposes. Image uniformity exhibited the most significant variations, with deterioration noted over 2.5% for all displays during the test period. This study compared different types of displays for DP and highlights the importance of regular calibration for maintaining display performance when using DP. Further research is recommended to define validation protocols, including the impact of display aging on DP accuracy.
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.