Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31355445›Full record

GuidelineThe Journal of pathology2019

Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the Digital Pathology Association.

Esther Abels, Liron Pantanowitz, Famke Aeffner, Mark D Zarella, Jeroen van der Laak, Marilyn M Bui, Venkata Np Vemuri, Anil V Parwani, Jeff Gibbs, Emmanuel Agosto-Arroyo and 2 more

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in The Journal of pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 190 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
190citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

190 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Regulatory science for AI-basedJournal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. DenseUNet for Breast Cancer Segmentation in Histopathological Images.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

130 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Esther AbelsRegulatory and Clinical Affairs, PathAI, Boston, MA, USA.
Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Famke AeffnerAmgen Research, Comparative Biology and Safety Sciences, Amgen Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mark D ZarellaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jeroen van der LaakDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marilyn M BuiDepartment of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Venkata Np VemuriData Science Department, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Anil V ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jeff GibbsHyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C, Washington, DC, USA.
Emmanuel Agosto-ArroyoDepartment of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Andrew H BeckPathAI, Boston, MA, USA.
Cleopatra KozlowskiDepartment of Development Sciences, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6209-2789

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this white paper, experts from the Digital Pathology Association (DPA) define terminology and concepts in the emerging field of computational pathology, with a focus on its application to histology images analyzed together with their associated patient data to extract information. This review offers a historical perspective and describes the potential clinical benefits from research and applications in this field, as well as significant obstacles to adoption. Best practices for implementing computational pathology workflows are presented. These include infrastructure considerations, acquisition of training data, quality assessments, as well as regulatory, ethical, and cyber-security concerns. Recommendations are provided for regulators, vendors, and computational pathology practitioners in order to facilitate progress in the field. © 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

Policy MakingTerminology as TopicArtificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingComputer SecurityDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPathologyPredictive Value of TestsWorkflowartificial intelligencecomputational pathologyconvolutional neural networksdeep learningdigital pathologyimage analysismachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31355445
PMCPMC6852275

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.