The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center
Open accessAbstract
Context. —There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use. Objective. —To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes. Design. —The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. Results. —Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image. Conclusions. —Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.
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
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Merlin, T., Weston, A., & Tooher, R. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-34 · Cited by 435
Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: Prospects for the future
Weinstein, R. S., Graham, A. R., Richter, L. C., Barker, G. P., Krupinski, E. A., Lopez, A. M., Erps, K. A., Bhattacharyya, A. K., Yagi, Y., & Gilbertson, J. R. (2009) · Human Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.006 · Cited by 380
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in digital pathology — new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology
Bera, K., Schalper, K. A., Rimm, D. L., Velcheti, V., & Madabhushi, A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-019-0252-y · Cited by 1,698
Nuclei Segmentation with Recurrent Residual Convolutional Neural Networks based U-Net (R2U-Net)
Alom, M. Z., Yakopcic, C., Taha, T. M., & Asari, V. K. (2018) · NAECON 2018 - IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference · doi:10.1109/naecon.2018.8556686 · Cited by 1,020
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice
Baxi, V., Edwards, R., Montalto, M., & Saha, S. (2022) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-021-00919-2 · Cited by 592
Emerging role of deep learning‐based artificial intelligence in tumor pathology
Jiang, Y., Yang, M., Wang, S., Li, X., & Sun, Y. (2020) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12012 · Cited by 438
Mukhopadhyay, S., Feldman, M. D., Abels, E., Ashfaq, R., Beltaifa, S., Cacciabeve, N. G., Cathro, H. P., Cheng, L., Cooper, K., Dickey, G. E., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000000948 · Cited by 399
Metadata
- Authors
- Pantanowitz, L., Sinard, J. H., Henricks, W. H., Fatheree, L. A., Carter, A. B., Contis, L., Beckwith, B. A., Evans, A. J., Lal, A., & Parwani, A. V.
- Venue
- Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1710-1722
- ISSN
- 0003-9985 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-2165
- OpenAlex
- W2166581609
- Cited by
- 620
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 44.54
- 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: Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5858/arpa.2013-0093-cp
- The paper
- Pantanowitz, L., Sinard, J. H., Henricks, W. H., Fatheree, L. A., Carter, A. B., Contis, L., Beckwith, B. A., Evans, A. J., Lal, A., & Parwani, A. V. (2013). Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0093-cp
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.