ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
A straightforward framework to harmonize computational pathology.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2026. 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.
- Regulatory science for AI-basedJournal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational pathology datasets are commonly described using inconsistent and locally defined terminology, often conflating biological units (patients, specimens), lab preparations (blocks, slides), and derived digital data (whole-slide images (WSIs), tiles, and patches). This ambiguity complicates interpretation of training data composition, limits comparability across studies, and affects claims regarding dataset scale, generalizability, and clinical relevance. We reviewed widely cited foundation models and observed substantial variability in how disease representation is reported, highlighting the need for a standardized hierarchical framework. We propose a straightforward harmonization framework by aligning dataset descriptions with the hierarchical information model defined by DICOM. The framework distinguishes clinical, lab, and digital domains and recommends explicit reporting across hierarchical levels. Adoption of this terminology enables transparent dataset characterization, improves reproducibility, and facilitates regulatory and clinical translation of computational pathology. This pragmatic framework provides an immediately implementable pathway towards harmonized reporting in artificial intelligence-driven pathology research.
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.