Virtual microscopy using whole-slide imaging as an enabler for teledermatopathology: A paired consultant validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for telemedicine, particularly in countries with large geographical areas and widely scattered low-density communities as is the case of the Canadian system, particularly if equality of care is to be achieved or the difference gap is to be narrowed between urban centers and more peripheral communities. AIMS: 1. To validate teledermatopathology as a diagnostic tool in under-serviced areas; 2. To test its utilization in inflammatory and melanocytic lesions; 3. To compare the impact of 20× (0.5 μm/pixel) and 40× (0.25 μm/pixel) scans on the diagnostic accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 103 dermatopathology cases divided into three arms were evaluated by two pathologists and results compared. The first arm consisted of 79 consecutive routine cases (n=79). The second arm consisted of 12 inflammatory skin biopsies (n=12) and the third arm consisted of 12 melanocytic lesions (n=12). Diagnosis concordance was used to evaluate the first arm. Whereas concordance of preset objective findings were used to evaluate the second and third arms. RESULTS: The diagnostic concordance rate for the first arm was 96%. The concordance rates of the objective findings for the second and third arms were 100%. The image quality was deemed superior to light microscopy for 40× scans. CONCLUSION: The current scanners produce high-resolution images that are adequate for evaluation of a variety of cases of different complexities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".