ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics
Consensus-Based Minimum Requirements for the Adoption of a Computational Pathology Algorithm for Tumor Budding in Colorectal Cancer: An Early Health Technology Assessment.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTumor budding (TB) is an independent prognostic biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet its clinical adoption is limited by labor-intensive and subjective visual scoring. Computational pathology (CPath) algorithms using deep learning offer potential to improve efficiency and reproducibility. Using an international Delphi study, we established consensus requirements to guide validation and clinical adoption of CPath algorithms, aiming to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient care.
methodsA two-round international Delphi process was conducted, involving international experts, to reach consensus on predefined statements. In round 1, baseline characteristics were collected and participants were asked to rank statements representing the minimal requirements for the implementation of a CPath algorithm for TB assessment. After completion of this round, participants received a personalized feedback report summarizing interim results for items that lacked consensus. In round 2, participants re-evaluated their initial responses to statements without consensus, in the light of anonymized group feedback provided in their personalized report.
resultsFifty-nine pathologists participated in round 1, with a 90% response rate in round 2. Consensus was reached for 21 of 29 (72%) minimal requirements. All reached consensus by agreement. Eight statements (28%) remained without consensus after round 2.
conclusionAgreement was reached on the technical, organizational, ethical, and legal aspects, although some requirements were not agreed upon. This highlights the importance of evaluations that take specific contexts into account, as well as the need for continuous stakeholder engagement throughout the development and implementation phases.
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.