ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2025
Roche Digital Pathology Dx whole slide imaging system is comparable to traditional microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2025. 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application and exploration of digital pathology technology in standardized residency training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Perceptions of digital pathology among healthcare workers in pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated the clinical performance of Roche Digital Pathology Dx, a whole slide imaging (WSI) system, in 2 studies according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Digital Pathology Association criteria.
methodsPrecision was measured by pathologists identifying 23 histopathology features; accuracy was assessed by comparing diagnoses from 2047 clinical cases with those from manual microscopy, with exploratory analyses including subgroup-specific diagnostic discrepancy rates.
resultsBoth studies met all predetermined primary endpoints. Precision between systems/sites was 89.3%; between days, 90.3%; and between readers, 90.1% (lower bound of 95% CI for each, ≥85%). The difference in accuracy between digital reads (DRs) and manual microscopy reads (MRs) vs reference sign-out diagnosis (SD), DRs - MRs, was -0.61% (lower bound of 95% CI, -1.59%), which was greater than the lower bound acceptance criterion (-4%). Mean case reading times were similar: 2.33 minutes (DRs) and 2.34 minutes (MRs). Review of breast, lung, bladder, kidney, and stomach case diagnoses did not identify DR modality-specific root causes for major diagnostic disagreements. Higher than expected disagreements in both modalities were traced to COVID-19 pandemic-related resource constraints, leading to challenging case adjudications and higher disagreement rates for longer SDs. Direct DR/MR adjudication supported this hypothesis, resulting in an intermodality disagreement rate of 4.77%; using SD as a "tiebreaker" reduced the overall DR disagreement rate to 2.97%.
conclusionsRoche Digital Pathology Dx is noninferior to manual microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology, with performance results similar to 5 distinct FDA-cleared WSI systems using different scanners.
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.