MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334882643 · doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200665

Going glass to digital: virtual microscopy as a simulation-based revolution in pathology and laboratory science

2012· review· en· W2334882643 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Nelson, Amitai Ziv, Karim S. Bandali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMichener Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual microscopyDigital pathologyResource (disambiguation)Virtual LaboratoryComputer scienceTelepathologyData scienceMedical laboratoryPathologyMedicineHealth careMedical physicsMultimediaTelemedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent technological advance of digital high resolution imaging has allowed the field of pathology and medical laboratory science to undergo a dramatic transformation with the incorporation of virtual microscopy as a simulation-based educational and diagnostic tool. This transformation has correlated with an overall increase in the use of simulation in medicine in an effort to address dwindling clinical resource availability and patient safety issues currently facing the modern healthcare system. Virtual microscopy represents one such simulation-based technology that has the potential to enhance student learning and readiness to practice while revolutionising the ability to clinically diagnose pathology collaboratively across the world. While understanding that a substantial amount of literature already exists on virtual microscopy, much more research is still required to elucidate the full capabilities of this technology. This review explores the use of virtual microscopy in medical education and disease diagnosis with a unique focus on key requirements needed to take this technology to the next level in its use in medical education and clinical practice.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207