ArticleDiagnostic pathology2026
Assessing the influence of two deep-learning assistance modes on pathologists in cancer identification.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has achieved good performance in image recognition, including identifying cancer cells in pathology images. However, the best mode of AI assistance in diagnostic pathology remains to be explored.
methodsWe compared the influence of two deep-learning assistance modes on pathologists in cancer identification. Ten board-certified pathologists classified 60 cases of nasopharyngeal biopsy as carcinoma or benign with or without AI assistance, which was either a heatmap of cancer probability accompanying a whole-slide image (AI-heatmap mode) or ten high-power field images with the highest cancer probability (AI-HPF mode).
resultsBoth assisting modes significantly accelerated the diagnostic process, lowered the subjective difficulty, and maintained high accuracy compared to the unassisted mode. Notably, the acceleration of diagnosis was more significant in AI-HPF mode than in AI-heatmap mode (time reduction: 35.1% vs. 28.1%; P = 0.040), especially for benign cases (time reduction: 49.4% vs. 32.9%; P = 0.0000072). For benign cases, an increased area proportion of false-positive AI prediction slowed down the diagnostic process in AI-heatmap mode (P = 0.00000084) but not in AI-HPF mode (P = 0.62).
conclusionsWe show for the first time that an AI-HPF assistance mode was superior to the commonly used AI-heatmap mode in accelerating cancer identification by pathologists. In our scenario, the AI-HPF mode maintained high diagnostic accuracy and was robust to the influence of false-positive AI prediction. The potential risk caused by AI assistance is also discussed.
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.