Journal of clinical pathology · 2025
Benchmarking digital displays (monitors) for histological diagnoses: the nephropathology use case.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cazzaniga Giorgio, Mascadri Francesco, Marletta Stefano, Caputo Alessandro, Guidi Gabriele, Gambaro Giovanni, Eccher Albino, Dei Tos Angelo Paolo, Pagni Fabio, L'Imperio Vincenzo
Аннотация
AIM: The digital transformation of the pathology laboratory is being continuously sustained by the introduction of innovative technologies promoting whole slide image (WSI)-based primary diagnosis. Here, we proposed a real-life benchmark of a pathology-dedicated medical monitor for the primary diagnosis of renal biopsies, evaluating the concordance between the 'traditional' microscope and commercial monitors using WSI from different scanners.
METHODS: The College of American Pathologists WSI validation guidelines were used on 60 consecutive renal biopsies from three scanners (Aperio, 3DHISTECH and Hamamatsu) using pathology-dedicated medical grade (MG), professional grade (PG) and consumer-off-the-shelf (COTS) monitors, comparing results with the microscope diagnosis after a 2-week washout period.
RESULTS: MG monitor was faster (1090 vs 1159 vs 1181 min, delta of 6-8%, p<0.01), with slightly better performances on the detection of concurrent diseases compared with COTS (κ=1 vs 0.96, 95% CI=0.87 to 1), but equal concordance to the commercial monitors on main diagnosis (κ=1). Minor discrepancies were noted on specific scores/classifications, with MG and PG monitors closer to the reference report (r=0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.91, 95% CI=0.76 to 1, κ=0.93, 95% CI=077 to 1 vs 0.93, 95% CI=0.77 to 1 vs 0.86, 95% CI=0.64 to 1, κ=1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1, for IgA, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody and lupus nephritis, respectively). Streamlined Pipeline for Amyloid detection through congo red fluorescence Digital Analysis detected amyloidosis on both monitors (4 of 30, 13% cases), allowing detection of minimal interstitial deposits with slight overestimation of the Amyloid Score (average 6 vs 7).
CONCLUSIONS: The digital transformation needs careful assessment of the hardware component to support a smart and safe diagnostic process. Choosing the display for WSI is critical in the process and requires adequate planning.
METHODS: The College of American Pathologists WSI validation guidelines were used on 60 consecutive renal biopsies from three scanners (Aperio, 3DHISTECH and Hamamatsu) using pathology-dedicated medical grade (MG), professional grade (PG) and consumer-off-the-shelf (COTS) monitors, comparing results with the microscope diagnosis after a 2-week washout period.
RESULTS: MG monitor was faster (1090 vs 1159 vs 1181 min, delta of 6-8%, p<0.01), with slightly better performances on the detection of concurrent diseases compared with COTS (κ=1 vs 0.96, 95% CI=0.87 to 1), but equal concordance to the commercial monitors on main diagnosis (κ=1). Minor discrepancies were noted on specific scores/classifications, with MG and PG monitors closer to the reference report (r=0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.91, 95% CI=0.76 to 1, κ=0.93, 95% CI=077 to 1 vs 0.93, 95% CI=0.77 to 1 vs 0.86, 95% CI=0.64 to 1, κ=1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1, for IgA, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody and lupus nephritis, respectively). Streamlined Pipeline for Amyloid detection through congo red fluorescence Digital Analysis detected amyloidosis on both monitors (4 of 30, 13% cases), allowing detection of minimal interstitial deposits with slight overestimation of the Amyloid Score (average 6 vs 7).
CONCLUSIONS: The digital transformation needs careful assessment of the hardware component to support a smart and safe diagnostic process. Choosing the display for WSI is critical in the process and requires adequate planning.