ArticleCroatian medical journal2026
Artificial intelligence in pathology: a framework for preserving brain capital in the diagnostic apex.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo present a five-criterion calibration framework for evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) tools in pathology centered on preserving "brain capital" - the finite cognitive resources available to clinicians - and stabilizing the "diagnostic apex," the point where histological evidence meets clinical judgment.
methodsUsing cognitive load theory (CLT) and implementation science, we developed the Pathology AI Diagnostic Balance - a conceptual model mapping the physician-specimen interaction within working memory and IT infrastructure constraints - and examined it in the context of peer-reviewed case studies of implemented pathology AI tools.
resultsThe framework identifies five criteria: Contextual Literacy (integration of clinical history), Responsibility (preservation of signing authority), Evidence Gap Analysis (closure of diagnostic uncertainty), Verification (feasibility of quality control), and Opportunity Cost (return on cognitive investment). Successful tools, such as Ki-67 quantification and breast cancer screening, reduce cognitive burden by automating routine tasks or enabling rapid verification. Conversely, tools requiring an exhaustive re-review or producing opaque recommendations deplete cognitive bandwidth, causing decision fatigue and diagnostic errors.
conclusionPathologists are positioned to exercise evaluative authority over tools that increase extraneous cognitive load. Clinical expertise represents pathologists' most distinctive contribution to AI development: defining which failure modes matter clinically, what context an AI must integrate, and whether a tool serves patient care. By prioritizing cognitive sustainability over purely technical metrics, the profession can ensure AI functions as a genuine enhancement of diagnostic capability rather than an additional burden on diagnostic workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42286907PMC13247739What 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.