ArticleDiagnostic pathology2025
Digital twin manifesto for the pathology laboratory.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practical considerations for pathologists when selecting digital pathology systems: an ESDIP guide.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
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
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
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.