Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42839101›Full record

ReviewVeterinary research communications2026

From traditional histopathology to virtual staining: deep learning approaches for assessing tissue lesions in farmed fish.

Enes Üstüner, Mustafa Öz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Enes ÜstünerDepartment of Fisheries and Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Türkiye. enesustuner@aksaray.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3837-5049
Mustafa ÖzDepartment of Fisheries and Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pesticides in aquaculture water and feed primarily induce chronic, sublethal toxicity rather than acute mortality, impairing growth, immune function, and tissue integrity. Consequently, organ-specific histopathological biomarkers are essential for ecotoxicological assessment and welfare monitoring. Traditional histopathology directly evaluates structural damage in key organs (e.g., gills, liver, kidneys). However, manual workflows face major bottlenecks, including invasive sampling, labor-intensive preparation, and observer-dependent scoring that hinder high-throughput screening and regulatory harmonization. This review evaluates how digital pathology integrating Whole Slide Imaging (WSI), deep learning for automated lesion quantification, and generative AI-based virtual staining bridges these analytical gaps. We examine how digitalization enhances diagnostic objectivity and scalability while reducing scoring variability. Furthermore, we critically address key implementation challenges, including ground-truth requirements, domain shifts across staining protocols, species generalization, and dataset annotation burdens. Ultimately, AI-enabled digital pathology represents a credible pathway toward objective, high-throughput pesticide toxicity assessment in aquaculture. However, standardized validation frameworks and robust ground-truth datasets remain critical prerequisites before these tools can transition from experimental promise to regulatory acceptance.

Indexed as

AquacultureDeep LearningFish DiseasesFishesStaining and LabelingAnimalsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPesticidesPesticidesAquaculture ecotoxicologyDeep learningDigital pathologyVirtual staining

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.