Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676687›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2025

Digital twin manifesto for the pathology laboratory.

Albino Eccher, Fabio Pagni, Massimo Dominici, Luca Reggiani Bonetti, Stefano Marletta, Enrico Munari, Giorgio Cazzaniga, Anil V Parwani, Vincenzo L'Imperio, Angelo Paolo Dei Tos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Albino EccherDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children and Adults, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Fabio PagniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Massimo DominiciDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children and Adults, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Luca Reggiani BonettiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children and Adults, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Stefano MarlettaDivision of Pathology, Humanitas Istituto Clinico Catanese, Catania, Italy.
Enrico MunariDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Giorgio CazzanigaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Anil V ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Vincenzo L'ImperioDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy. vincenzo.limperio@unimib.it.
Angelo Paolo Dei TosSurgical Pathology and Cytopathology Unit, Department of Medicine- DIMED, University of Padua School of Medicine, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript presents a manifesto developed by a multifaceted board of stakeholders aimed at guiding the implementation of Digital Twin (DT) technology in pathology laboratories. DTs, already transformative in other sectors, hold substantial promise for enhancing operational efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and quality of care in pathology. We provide a comparative analysis of traditional versus DT-enhanced workflows across critical steps including accessioning, grossing, processing, embedding, cutting, staining, scanning, diagnosis, and archiving. The framework highlights measurable gains such as up to 90% reduction in labeling errors, 20-30% improvements in slide quality, and 30-50% reductions in diagnostic turnaround time. Alongside these benefits, we address key implementation challenges including upfront infrastructure costs, workforce adaptation, and data security concerns. A practical, phased deployment strategy is proposed-centered on LIS integration, IoT sensors, AI modules, and robust data governance. Estimated setup costs for a medium-sized laboratory range between USD 100,000 and USD 200,000, with a phased rollout timeline of 12-24 months. Supporting technologies like robotic process automation (RPA), collaborative robotics, and edge computing are also discussed as enablers of successful DT adoption. The manifesto closes by identifying critical research gaps, including the need for longitudinal studies evaluating DTs' clinical and economic impacts, integration within existing hospital IT systems, and ethical implications of AI-assisted diagnostics. Through this collective vision, we provide a realistic and actionable roadmap to drive the transition toward predictive, efficient, and digitally optimized pathology laboratories.

Indexed as

Laboratories, ClinicalPathology, ClinicalHumansWorkflowAutomationDigital twinsPathology

Identifiers

PMID40676687
PMCPMC12273362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.