Contact us
|
Home
|
Login
| Users Online: 318
Feedback
Subscribe
Advertise
Search
Advanced Search
Month wise articles
Figures next to the month indicate the number of articles in that month
2022
January
[
3
]
2021
December
[
1
]
November
[
3
]
September
[
1
]
May
[
1
]
April
[
3
]
January
[
1
]
2020
December
[
1
]
October
[
1
]
July
[
1
]
2019
April
[
1
]
February
[
1
]
2018
December
[
1
]
September
[
1
]
June
[
1
]
May
[
2
]
April
[
3
]
2017
December
[
1
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
1
]
September
[
1
]
July
[
1
]
June
[
1
]
April
[
2
]
March
[
1
]
February
[
2
]
2016
December
[
1
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
1
]
September
[
2
]
July
[
1
]
May
[
1
]
April
[
1
]
February
[
1
]
January
[
1
]
2015
November
[
2
]
September
[
1
]
August
[
1
]
July
[
2
]
June
[
1
]
March
[
1
]
January
[
2
]
2014
November
[
1
]
September
[
1
]
August
[
1
]
July
[
3
]
March
[
1
]
2013
September
[
1
]
August
[
1
]
January
[
1
]
2012
November
[
1
]
June
[
1
]
April
[
1
]
2011
December
[
1
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
1
]
August
[
1
]
June
[
1
]
May
[
2
]
March
[
1
]
2010
October
[
1
]
May
[
1
]
» Articles published in the past year
To view other articles click corresponding year from the navigation links on the left side.
All
|
Abstracts
|
Book Review
|
Brief Report
|
Commentary
|
Editorial
|
Editorials
|
Guidelines
|
Original Article
|
Original Articles
|
Research Article
|
Review Articles
|
Symposium
|
Technical Note
|
View Point
Export selected to
Endnote
Reference Manager
Procite
Medlars Format
RefWorks Format
BibTex Format
Show all abstracts
Show selected abstracts
Export selected to
Add to my list
Technical Note:
Validation of a whole slide imaging system for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: A community hospital experience
Thomas P Buck, Rebecca Dilorio, Lauren Havrilla, Dennis G O'Neill
J Pathol Inform
2014, 5:43 (28 November 2014)
DOI
:10.4103/2153-3539.145731
PMID
:25535591
Guidelines for validating whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology have been recommended by an expert panel commissioned by the College of American Pathologists. The implementation of such a system using these validation guidelines has not been reported from the community hospital setting. The objective was to implement a WSI system, validate each pathologist using the system and run the system in parallel with routine glass slide interpretation. Six pathologists re-reviewed approximately 300 previously diagnosed specimens each, divided equally between glass slides and digital images (scanned at Χ20). Baseline intraobserver discordance rates (glass to glass) were calculated and compared to discordance rates between the original glass slide interpretation and the reviewed digital slide interpretation. A minimum of 3 months was used as the washout period. After validation, a subset of daily cases was diagnosed in parallel using traditional microscopy (TM) and WSI over an 8-month period. The TM and WSI discordance rates ranged from 3.3% to 13.3% and 2.1% to 10.1%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference among the pathologists. The parallel study yielded similar rates of discordances. In our laboratory, after appropriate implementation and training, there was no difference between the WSI and TM methods.
[ABSTRACT]
[HTML Full text]
[PDF]
[Mobile Full text]
[EPub]
[Citations (24) ]
[PubMed]
[Sword Plugin for Repository]
Beta
Sitemap
|
What's New
Feedback
|
Copyright and Disclaimer
|
Privacy Notice
© Journal of Pathology Informatics | Published by Wolters Kluwer -
Medknow
Online since 10
th
March, 2010