ArticleEndocrine pathology2025
Quantitative Assessment of Focus Quality in Whole-Slide Imaging of Thyroid Liquid-Based Cytology Using Laplacian Variance.
Article in Endocrine 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.
- Pathology Foundation Models: Evolution, Current Landscape, Challenges and Opportunities from a Technical and Clinical Perspective.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable focus is essential for digital cytopathology, yet three-dimensional cell clusters in liquid-based cytology (LBC) slides pose persistent challenges for single-plane whole-slide imaging. We sought to quantitatively compare focus performance among three whole-slide scanners and to evaluate the use of Laplacian variance as an objective focus quality metric. A total of 102,573 image tiles (512 × 512 pixels) were generated from 36 whole-slide images after scanning twelve thyroid LBC slides at 40× magnification using three scanners. Single-plane mode with automatic focusing was applied. Image sharpness for each tile was computed in Python using the variance of the Laplacian, quantified as a focus score and classified into five ordinal categories, ultimately dichotomized as in-focus (variance ≥ 10) versus out-of-focus. Statistical comparisons between scanners were performed. Laplacian variance scores showed strong concordance with visual assessments of focus quality made by pathologists. One scanner consistently achieved the highest median focus scores and the most uniform spatial distribution for SurePath slides, while the other two demonstrated lower median values and greater variability. ThinPrep slides exhibited high focus quality across all scanners (> 95% in-focus), with smaller but still measurable inter-scanner differences. Overall, more than 70% of tiles were in-focus across all scanners, suggesting preserved diagnostic usability. Laplacian variance is a practical and reproducible tool for assessing focus quality in digital cytology. Focus performance varied among scanners, particularly for slides with three-dimensional cell clusters, whereas differences were less pronounced for monolayer ThinPrep preparations. Quantitative focus assessment may support scanner selection, quality assurance, and computational cytopathology workflows.
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.