Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Whole-Slide Imaging Digital Pathology as a Platform for Teleconsultation: A Pilot Study Using Paired Subspecialist Correlations

Open access
Wilbur, David C., Madi, Kalil, Colvin, Robert B., Duncan, Lyn M., Faquin, William C., Ferry, Judith A., Frosch, Matthew P., Houser, Stuart L., Kradin, Richard L., Lauwers, Gregory Y., Louis, David N., Mark, Eugene J., Mino-Kenudson, Mari, Misdraji, Joseph, Nielsen, Gunnlauger P., Pitman, Martha B., Rosenberg, Andrew E., Smith, R. Neal, Sohani, Aliyah R., Stone, James R., Tambouret, Rosemary H., Wu, Chin-Lee, Young, Robert H., Zembowicz, Artur, Klietmann, Wolfgang·2009·Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine

Abstract

Context. —Whole-slide imaging technology offers promise for rapid, Internet-based telepathology consultations between institutions. Before implementation, technical issues, pathologist adaptability, and morphologic pitfalls must be well characterized. Objective. —To determine whether interpretation of whole-slide images differed from glass-slide interpretation in difficult surgical pathology cases. Design. —Diagnostically challenging pathology slides from a variety of anatomic sites from an outside laboratory were scanned into whole digital format. Digital and glass slides were independently diagnosed by 2 subspecialty pathologists. Reference, digital, and glass-slide interpretations were compared. Operator comments on technical issues were gathered. Results. —Fifty-three case pairs were analyzed. There was agreement among digital, glass, and reference diagnoses in 45 cases (85%) and between digital and glass diagnoses in 48 (91%) cases. There were 5 digital cases (9%) discordant with both reference and glass diagnoses. Further review of each of these cases indicated an incorrect digital whole-slide interpretation. Neoplastic cases showed better correlation (93%) than did cases of nonneoplastic disease (88%). Comments on discordant cases related to digital whole technology focused on issues such as fine resolution and navigating ability at high magnification. Conclusions. —Overall concordance between digital whole-slide and standard glass-slide interpretations was good at 91%. Adjustments in technology, case selection, and technology familiarization should improve performance, making digital whole-slide review feasible for broader telepathology subspecialty consultation applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5858/133.12.1949

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Wilbur, D. C., Madi, K., Colvin, R. B., Duncan, L. M., Faquin, W. C., Ferry, J. A., Frosch, M. P., Houser, S. L., Kradin, R. L., Lauwers, G. Y., Louis, D. N., Mark, E. J., Mino-Kenudson, M., Misdraji, J., Nielsen, G. P., Pitman, M. B., Rosenberg, A. E., Smith, R. N., Sohani, A. R., Stone, J. R., Tambouret, R. H., Wu, C.-L., Young, R. H., Zembowicz, A., & Klietmann, W.
Venue
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Published
2009-12
Volume
133
Issue
12
Pages
1949-1953
ISSN
  • 0003-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2165
OpenAlex
W2168460514
Cited by
168
References
0
FWCI
13.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whole-Slide Imaging Digital Pathology as a Platform for Teleconsultation: A Pilot Study Using Paired Subspecialist Correlations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5858/133.12.1949
The paper
Wilbur, D. C., Madi, K., Colvin, R. B., Duncan, L. M., Faquin, W. C., Ferry, J. A., Frosch, M. P., Houser, S. L., Kradin, R. L., Lauwers, G. Y., Louis, D. N., Mark, E. J., Mino-Kenudson, M., Misdraji, J., Nielsen, G. P., Pitman, M. B., Rosenberg, A. E., Smith, R. N., Sohani, A. R., . . . Klietmann, W. (2009). Whole-Slide Imaging Digital Pathology as a Platform for Teleconsultation: A Pilot Study Using Paired Subspecialist Correlations. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.5858/133.12.1949

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.