ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Rise of AI-Assisted Diagnosis: Will Pathologists Be Partners or Bystanders?
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Melanoma Intelligence: Explainable AI Reveals Histopathologic Aggressiveness as the Dominant Axis of Lymph-Node Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Compositional and interpretable representation of histology using AI foundation models and sparse autoencoders.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Advances in fluorescence-based point-of-care diagnostics: probes, nanostructures and integrated systems.Journal of materials chemistry. C · 2026Review
- Terminally exhausted CD8Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 150 years, pathology has transformed remarkably, from the humble beginnings of microscopic tissue examination to today's revolutionary advancements in digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) applications. This review briefly retraces the evolution of microscopes and highlights breakthroughs in complementary tools and techniques that laid the foundation for modern surgical pathology, recently expanded into a new dimension with digital pathology. Digital pathology marked a pivotal turning point by addressing the longstanding limitations of conventional microscopy, paving the way for AI integration. AI now revolutionizes pathology workflows, offering unprecedented opportunities for automated diagnostics, enhanced precision, accelerated research, and advanced medical education. Despite widespread consensus on AI as complementary to pathologists, rare studies critically explore the feasibility of a fully autonomous, pathologist-independent diagnostic workflow. Given the rapid advancement of AI, it is timely to examine whether mature AI systems might realistically achieve diagnostic autonomy. Thus, this review uniquely addresses this gap by evaluating the feasibility, limitations, and implications of a disruptive, pathologist-free diagnostic model. This exploration raises critical questions about the evolving role of pathologists in an era increasingly defined by automation. Can pathologists adapt to emerging trends, maintain their central role in patient care, and leverage AI effectively, or will their traditional roles inevitably diminish? Could the continued advancement of AI eventually prompt a return of pathologists to their initial mid-19th century role as scientist scholars, removed from frontline diagnostics? Ultimately, we assess whether AI can independently sustain diagnostic accuracy and decision making without pathologist oversight.
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.