The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Implementation of large-scale routine diagnostics using whole slide imaging in Sweden: Digital pathology experiences 2006-2013
Open accessAbstract
Recent technological advances have improved the whole slide imaging (WSI) scanner quality and reduced the cost of storage, thereby enabling the deployment of digital pathology for routine diagnostics. In this paper we present the experiences from two Swedish sites having deployed routine large-scale WSI for primary review. At Kalmar County Hospital, the digitization process started in 2006 to reduce the time spent at the microscope in order to improve the ergonomics. Since 2008, more than 500,000 glass slides have been scanned in the routine operations of Kalmar and the neighboring Linköping University Hospital. All glass slides are digitally scanned yet they are also physically delivered to the consulting pathologist who can choose to review the slides on screen, in the microscope, or both. The digital operations include regular remote case reporting by a few hospital pathologists, as well as around 150 cases per week where primary review is outsourced to a private clinic. To investigate how the pathologists choose to use the digital slides, a web-based questionnaire was designed and sent out to the pathologists in Kalmar and Linköping. The responses showed that almost all pathologists think that ergonomics have improved and that image quality was sufficient for most histopathologic diagnostic work. 38 ± 28% of the cases were diagnosed digitally, but the survey also revealed that the pathologists commonly switch back and forth between digital and conventional microscopy within the same case. The fact that two full-scale digital systems have been implemented and that a large portion of the primary reporting is voluntarily performed digitally shows that large-scale digitization is possible today.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence
Niazi, M. K. K., Parwani, A. V., & Gurcan, M. N. (2019) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30154-8 · Cited by 1,232
Evans, A. J., Bauer, T. W., Bui, M. M., Cornish, T. C., Duncan, H., Glassy, E. F., Hipp, J., McGee, R. S., Murphy, D., Myers, C., et al. (2018) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/arpa.2017-0496-cp · Cited by 168
Paterson, C., Bacon, R., Dwyer, R., Morrison, K. S., Toohey, K., O'Dea, A., Slade, J., Mortazavi, R., Roberts, C., Pranavan, G., et al. (2020) · Seminars in Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151090 · Cited by 139
Olsen, T. G., Jackson, B. H., Feeser, T. A., Kent, M. N., Moad, J. C., Krishnamurthy, S., Lunsford, D. D., & Soans, R. E. (2018) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_31_18 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Thorstenson, S., Molin, J., & Lundström, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Pathology Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14
- ISSN
- 2153-3539 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055965251
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.