ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Augmented reality microscopy to bridge trust between AI and pathologists.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 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.
- The Cost of Accessibility: Considerations for Adopting Microscope Camera-Derived Images for Digital and Computational Pathology.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Foundation models in healthcare: a comprehensive review from technical advances to clinical translation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into colorectal cancer reporting.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
- Feasibility of an Augmented Reality Artificial Intelligence Tool for Real-Time Assessment of Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Adequacy.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Visualization-driven digital technologies in oncology: current applications, technological advances, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Deciphering site-specific histopathological parameters with potential clinical value in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.Oncology letters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic certainty is the cornerstone of modern medicine and critical for maximal treatment benefit. When evaluating biomarker expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC), however, pathologists are hindered by complex scoring methodologies, unique positivity cut-offs and subjective staining interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially eliminate diagnostic uncertainty, especially when AI "trustworthiness" is proven by expert pathologists in the context of real-world clinical practice. Building on an IHC foundation model, we employed pathologists-in-the-loop finetuning to produce a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CPS AI Model. We devised a multi-head augmented reality microscope (ARM) system overlayed with the PD-L1 CPS AI Model to assess interobserver variability and gauge the pathologists' trust in AI model outputs. Using difficult to interpret regions on gastroesophageal biopsies, we show that AI-assistance improved case agreement between any 2 pathologists by 14% (agreement on 77% vs 91%) and among 11 pathologists by 26% (agreement on 43% vs 69%). At a clinical cutoff of PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, the number of cases diagnosed as positive by all 11 pathologists increased by 31%. Our findings underscore the benefits of fully engaging pathologists as active participants in the development and deployment of IHC AI models and frame the roadmap for trustworthy AI as a bridge to increased adoption in routine pathology practice.
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.