Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41389319›Full record

ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025

Digital pathology in forensic science: a systematic review of the literature.

Laura Ambrosi, Federica Amirante, Simona Nicolì, Andrea Marzullo, Giuseppe Ingravallo, Davide Ferorelli, Biagio Solarino, Gianmarco Argentiero

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

8 authors.

Laura AmbrosiInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9825-1739
Federica AmiranteInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. f.amirante@studenti.uniba.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9410-8212
Simona NicolìDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5908-0920
Andrea MarzulloDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, Pathology Unit, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", 70121, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1265-3685
Giuseppe IngravalloDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, Pathology Unit, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", 70121, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-3545
Davide FerorelliInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8150-7476
Biagio SolarinoInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3096-8998
Gianmarco ArgentieroDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100, Pavia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3300-6624

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital pathology (DP) and whole-slide imaging (WSI) are increasingly utilized in clinical pathology; however, their role in forensic medicine remains less defined, as evidentiary standards demand robust validation, auditability, and a chain of custody.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that applied DP and WSI to forensic, autopsy, or postmortem contexts, with eligibility requiring peer-reviewed human studies that reported methods and outcomes. Data were charted for study design, tissue, devices/software, and outcomes (diagnostic agreement, quantitative metrics, validation/quality assurance (QA)).

resultsThe search retrieved 361 records; after screening and full-text assessment, 21 studies were selected for inclusion. Fifteen studies primarily advanced diagnostic knowledge using postmortem material (e.g., quantitative neuropathology and organ-specific morphometry), while five had direct forensic aims (casework validation or core forensic tests).

conclusionsThe review highlights that DP is technically ready for medico-legal workflows; however, its use remains low compared to other clinical settings. Adoption in forensics should centre on CAP-style, use-case-specific validation, traceable/auditable pipelines (including hashing, logs, and tile-linked overlays), stain/colour governance, and external robustness testing. Under these conditions, DP can deliver reproducible, transparent, and court-defensible evidence across forensic practice.

Indexed as

Digital histopathologyDigital pathologyForensicWhole slide image

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.