ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Deployment of AI-driven automated quality control of whole-slide images in a large tertiary cancer center.
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.
- Guidance for laboratory implementation, governance and continuous assurance of artificial intelligence in histopathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Quality control (QC) remains a major challenge in digital histopathology, as artifacts introduced during slide preparation and whole-slide imaging (WSI) can compromise diagnostic accuracy. Automated QC has emerged as a potential solution to the scalability and variability limitations of manual review in digital pathology workflows. However, there is limited evidence describing real-world, enterprise-scale implementation of automated QC systems within high-throughput clinical environments. Materials and methods: We evaluated the clinical implementation of a commercially available, AI-based automated QC platform (AIRAQc) within a large digital pathology lab. Feasibility testing included 60 histopathology slides scanned across 3 WSI platforms. Following enterprise integration, a retrospective operational analysis was performed on 94,995 WSIs generated over 1 month across 10 subspecialty services and multiple stain types. System performance, artifact prevalence, processing latency, reproducibility, and scalability were assessed using structured data exports, statistical analyses, and controlled load-testing scenarios. Results: Artifact detection demonstrated high reproducibility across scanner platforms, with tissue fold detection showing >97% concordance and air bubble detection exceeding 98% concordance. Scanning-related artifacts, including missing tissue and blurred regions, varied by scanner model but were consistently identified. Across the clinical deployment, the mean analysis time was 17 s/image, with no analysis failures observed during load testing. Mean total artifact burden/image was 1.91%, with most images meeting predefined QC thresholds. The system maintained stable performance under sustained high-throughput conditions, supporting daily volumes exceeding 6000 slides without workflow disruption. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasible deployment of an AI-based QC framework within a large-scale, multi-vendor clinical digital pathology environment. The QC framework enabled consistent assessment of routine WSIs with low per-image latency and sustained high-throughput scanning without workflow disruption. Consistent application of QC thresholds across a multi-instrument infrastructure reduced reliance on manual review and supports the integration of automated QC as a core component of contemporary digital pathology workflows.
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.