ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Pilot test for the semi-automated embedding in the pathology laboratory at the University and Hospital Trust of Padua.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathology laboratories face increasing workloads and staff shortages, making analytical steps such as embedding critical. Manual embedding is time-consuming and operator-dependent, contributing to diagnostic delays and errors that can be costly or even fatal. Automation offers a potential solution, yet adoption remains limited due to cost and technical deployment constraints. In this work, a semi-automated embedding system was tested in a high-volume academical hospital over two weeks. A total of 1053 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks (287 skin biopsies, 766 surgical specimens) were processed. Performance was compared to manual embedding in terms of embedding time, rates of deeper sections, and the need for re-embedding. The semi-automated system achieved an average embedding time of 37 s per block (48 s for skin biopsies; 32 s for surgical specimens), compared to 70 s manually, corresponding to a 47% time reduction. Workflow efficiency improved progressively during testing with minimal requests for deeper sections and re-embedding. Automation of the embedding also reduced paraffin waste and workstation cleanup time. Semi-automated embedding significantly improves efficiency, reduces manual workload, and mitigates risks associated with analytical errors, particularly in skin pathology. By reducing embedding times and enabling more efficient personnel allocation, this technology addresses growing demands in pathology laboratories and enhances patient safety. Despite initial investment requirements, its potential for cost savings and workflow optimization supports broad adoption in modern pathology laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42213137What 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.