Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934323›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2025

Artificial intelligence in digital pathology - time for a reality check.

Arpit Aggarwal, Satvika Bharadwaj, Germán Corredor, Tilak Pathak, Sunil Badve, Anant Madabhushi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Computationally Derived Spatial Immune Signature Identifies Trastuzumab Responders in HER2+ Breast Cancer: NSABP B-41 Clinical Trial Validation.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Trial
  2. AI In Leukemia Diagnostics: Complementing the Pathologist's Role.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Arpit Aggarwal *Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3253-7270
Satvika Bharadwaj *Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Germán CorredorWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tilak PathakDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sunil BadveDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8861-9980
Anant MadabhushiWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. anantm@emory.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5741-0399

Funding

Oral Cavity Quantitative Histomorphometric Risk Classifier (OHbIC) in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OC-SCC)R01CA249992 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI LEWIS, JAMES, MADABHUSHI, ANANT · 2021 to 2025
$3.2M
Quantitative Histomorphometric Risk Classifier (QuHbIC) in HPV + Oropharyngeal CarcinomaR01CA220581 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KOYFMAN, SHLOMO, LEWIS, JAMES · 2018 to 2023
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA220581NCI NIH HHS R01 CA249992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The past decade has seen the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches aimed at optimizing several workflows across many medical specialties. In clinical oncology, the most promising applications include those involving image analysis, such as digital pathology. In this Perspective, we provide a comprehensive examination of the developments in AI in digital pathology between 2019 and 2024. We evaluate the current landscape from the lens of technological innovations, regulatory trends, deployment and implementation, reimbursement and commercial implications. We assess the technological advances that have driven improvements in AI, enabling more robust and scalable solutions for digital pathology. We also examine regulatory developments, in particular those affecting in-house devices and laboratory-developed tests, which are shaping the landscape of AI-based tools in digital pathology. Finally, we discuss the role of reimbursement frameworks and commercial investment in the clinical adoption of AI-based technologies. In this Perspective, we highlight both the progress and challenges in AI-driven digital pathology over the past 5 years, outlining the path forward for its adoption into routine practice in clinical oncology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPathology, ClinicalHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.