ArticleScientific reports2025
An open-source platform for structured annotation and computational workflows in digital pathology research.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating tumour immune infiltration: methodological convergence across histology and spatial technologies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Update of the MSKCC nomogram for metastatic progression and its role in active surveillance: the Italian TPCP cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid evolution of digital pathology has enabled large-scale data acquisition, driving sophisticated clinical research and advancing the development of AI-driven tools. These innovations have also revolutionised histopathological slide review, especially the annotation step (i.e. the process of marking specific areas of interest on glass-mounted tissue samples to add relevant clinical information) by digitising the process, enhancing precision and efficiency, and facilitating collaboration. However, currently available open-source annotation tools typically employ single-label approaches that provide a flat representation of whole-slide images (WSI), limiting their ability to capture the complexity of the diagnosis-significant elements in a detailed and structured way. Furthermore, the difficulty of strictly following precise review protocols and lack of provenance tracking during annotation processes can result in high variability and limit reproducibility and reusability of the collected data. In this work we present the CRS4 Digital Pathology Platform (CDPP), an open-source system for research studies that manages WSI collections and focuses on high-quality, structured annotations, gathered according to well-defined protocols. Its main features include: (1) structured, multi-label morphological and clinical image annotation; (2) support for controlled but customisable annotation protocols; (3) dedicated annotation tools to facilitate enhanced accuracy, efficiency and consistency in the annotation process; and (4) workflow-based computational analysis with integrated provenance tracking. We show how the platform has successfully supported three different studies, demonstrating the CDPP's ability to assist pathologists in the generation of high-quality annotated datasets, also suitable for reuse, in the context of digital pathology research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.