ReviewJournal of pathology informatics2026
Considerations for digital pathology displays.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The display is a vitally important component in the digital imaging chain, being placed at the final step at the interface to the pathologist. In medical imaging fields such as radiology, there are numerous guidelines and standards relating to the display. However, in digital pathology, there are relatively few recommendations for displays, and those that are available can quickly become obsolete in this fast-moving field. There is general disagreement over whether consumer-grade displays are adequate for digital pathology reporting, or whether medical-grade displays are required, as is the practice in radiology. However, irrespective of the type of display chosen, it is essential that the device can ensure a reproducible, reliable, optimal appearance for diagnostic assessment. This is particularly important to support the ongoing clinical implementation of digital pathology and engender confidence in this relatively new and disruptive technology from the perspective of medical professionals, patients, and the public. Here, we describe and examine the existing guidance on displays in digital pathology and the current landscape of devices. We present tools and methodologies to aid display selection, propose minimum recommendations for pathology display specifications, and present a framework for design of a display quality assurance method.
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.