ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Comparison of digital displays for efficient diagnosis and accuracy.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Display performance and standards for primary digital pathology sign-out: Technical specifications, validation, and quality assurance.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital pathology is transforming diagnostic workflows by enabling the interpretation of whole-slide images on digital displays, offering advantages in remote diagnostics, efficiency, and integration with computational tools. However, diagnostic reliability depends not only on scanner and software quality but also on the performance of the display systems used for image review, as well as on environmental and ergonomic factors. This study evaluated the impact of display quality on diagnostic accuracy by comparing a medical-grade, professional-grade, and consumer-grade display against conventional light microscopy. Nineteen hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and 19 immunohistochemistry (IHC) slides were assessed by two board-certified pathologists across all modalities. The medical-grade display achieved perfect concordance with microscopy for H&E slides and was rated highest for image clarity, color fidelity, and luminance stability. In contrast, the professional- and consumer-grade displays showed lower concordance (85-95%) and received inferior subjective evaluation. For IHC slides, both observers achieved 100% concordance for HER2 and AMACR markers across all displays. One discordant MLH1 case was noted on the medical-grade display for one observer out of five cases. Although MLH1 is consistently analyzed alongside other MSI markers, this isolated discrepancy precludes firm conclusions about display performance for this marker. These findings highlight the importance of clinically validated displays with automated calibration and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure consistent diagnostic performance. As digital pathology becomes increasingly integrated with remote workflows, establishing minimum performance standards for display systems will be essential to safeguard diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and patient safety in clinical practice.
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.