ArticleCytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology2026
Validation of Digital Cytology for Primary Diagnosis Across a Range of Specimen Types.
Article in Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the diagnostic performance of high-resolution whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary cytological diagnosis across a broad range of specimen types and preparations.
methodsIn a single-centre, retrospective validation study, 88 archived cytology cases representative of routine clinical practice were scanned at 40× equivalent magnification (0.23 μm/pixel) using the Hamamatsu NanoZoomer S360MD Slide scanner system. Specimens included gynaecological and non-gynaecological exfoliative and fine needle aspirate samples, prepared as smears, ThinPreps, cytospins or cell blocks. WSI were each reviewed independently by two expert cytopathologists with minimal prior digital cytology reporting experience, blinded to original light microscopy (LM) diagnoses. Discordant cases underwent LM review. Diagnostic concordance and agreement were assessed using percentage concordance and Cohen's κ (unweighted and weighted, for non-gynaecological cases only). A post-study questionnaire captured qualitative feedback.
resultsOf the 88 cases, 65 showed concordance between digital and LM diagnoses. Amongst the remaining 23 cases, 15 demonstrated diagnostic discrepancy by LM. Excluding these, the digital-LM concordance rate was 95.1%. When all cases were included, concordance ranged from 89.5% for within-observer analysis to 89.8% when compared with a majority LM diagnosis. Agreement analysis demonstrated substantial to near-perfect digital-LM agreement (unweighted κ = 0.86; weighted κ = 0.83-0.95), improving further following exclusion of diagnostically discrepant cases (κ = 0.89-0.97). Inter-observer agreement was lower than intra-observer agreement for both digital and LM comparisons. Feedback indicated that image quality was generally good. Challenges included visualising thick smear preparations, three-dimensional cell clusters, sparse atypical cells and screening gynaecological (cervical) cytology cases. All participants expressed openness to adopting digital cytology.
conclusionHigh-resolution WSI demonstrated strong diagnostic concordance with traditional LM across a wide range of cytological specimen types and preparations. Despite limited prior experience, digital cytology was considered acceptable and feasible, supporting its integration into routine clinical practice, with appropriate training and quality assurance.
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.