ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Display performance and standards for primary digital pathology sign-out: Technical specifications, validation, and quality assurance.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: As labs transition from glass slides to whole-slide imaging (WSI), the diagnostic display becomes the pathologist's new microscope and the terminus of the pixel pipeline. Objective: To synthesize technical, regulatory, and quality assurance (QA) guidance for monitors used in primary digital pathology sign-out and to clarify where pathology requirements diverge from radiology. Design: Narrative synthesis of available technical specifications from published technical articles for diagnostic displays in digital pathology, consolidated into practical guidance for selecting and interoperable swapping displays in the pixel pipeline. Results: Critically important monitor attributes include resolution/pixel density, luminance stability, contrast performance, and color rendering (gamut and bit depth). Debates remain over whether purpose-built medical-grade (MG) displays or high-performance consumer/professional-grade (CPG) displays are sufficient for digital pathology sign-out. Moreover, among the CPG display options, in-plane switching displays with light-emitting diode backlights remain preferred for sign-out over OLED (organic light-emitting diode) monitors. Whereas OLED monitors offer excellent contrast, there are durability and uniformity concerns. QA in labs deploying digital pathology should address luminescence deterioration and ambient lighting. Ergonomically, a 27-in. 4K display is adequate for primary sign-out; larger screens (30-32 in.) can expand the field of view but may introduce head/eye-movement and viewing distance burden. Conclusions: Pathology's reliance on polychromatic stains necessitates display standards distinct from radiology's grayscale focus. Validated CPG displays can be acceptable alternatives to universally mandating for digital pathology sign-out, costly MG displays, provided a disciplined QA program supports them. Rigorous local validation and ongoing QA are indispensable.
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.