MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utility of whole slide imaging and virtual microscopy in prostate pathology

2012· review· en· W2090797546 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApmis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual microscopyProstateMicroscopyPathologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole slide imaging (WSI) has been used in conjunction with virtual microscopy (VM) for training or proficiency testing purposes, multicentre research, remote frozen section diagnosis and to seek specialist second opinion in a number of organ systems. The feasibility of using WSI/VM for routine surgical pathology reporting has also been explored. In this review, we discuss the utility and limitations of WSI/VM technology in the histological assessment of specimens from the prostate. Features of WSI/VM that are particularly well suited to assessment of prostate pathology include the ability to examine images at different magnifications as well as to view histology and immunohistochemistry side-by-side on the screen. Use of WSI/VM would also solve the difficulty in obtaining multiple identical copies of small lesions in prostate biopsies for teaching and proficiency testing. It would also permit annotation of the virtual slides, and has been used in a study of inter-observer variation of Gleason grading to facilitate precise identification of the foci on which grading decisions had been based. However, the large number of sections examined from each set of prostate biopsies would greatly increase time required for scanning as well as the size of the digital file, and would also be an issue if digital archiving of prostate biopsies is contemplated. Z-scanning of glass slides, a process that increases scanning time and file size would be required to permit focusing a virtual slide up and down to assess subtle nuclear features such as nucleolar prominence. The common use of large blocks to process prostatectomy specimens would also be an issue, as few currently available scanners can scan such blocks. A major component of proficiency testing of prostate biopsy assessment involves screening of the cores to detect small atypical foci. However, screening virtual slides of wavy fragmented prostate cores using a computer mouse aided by an overview image is very different from screening glass slides using a microscope stage. Hence, it may be more appropriate in this setting to mark the lesional area and focus only on the interpretation component of competency testing. Other issues limiting the use of digital pathology in prostate pathology include the cost of high quality slide scanners for WSI and high resolution monitors for VM as well as the requirement for fast Internet connection as even a subtle delay in presentation of images on the screen may be very disturbing for a pathologist used to the rapid viewing of glass slides under a microscope. However, these problems are likely to be overcome by technological advances in the future.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it