Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42318449›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026

Comparative analysis of whole-slide scanner tissue detection algorithms: Implications for scan area, scan time, and file size in high-volume digital pathology workflows.

K Hasan Bilal, Kaitlyn Gelfant, Allyne Manzo, Victor E Reuter, Meera Hameed, Matthew G Hanna, Orly Ardon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

K Hasan BilalDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Kaitlyn GelfantDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Allyne ManzoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Victor E ReuterDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Meera HameedDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew G HannaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Orly ArdonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Whole-slide imaging (WSI) systems differ in their tissue detection algorithms, which can alter the scanned area, scan time, and file size. In high-volume labs, these differences translate into tangible workflow and cost implications. Digital pathology workflows require high-resolution digitization of glass slides that can be achieved by using specialized WSI systems. Whole-slide scanners vary in technical features that affect magnification, throughput, image quality, and resulting file formats and sizes. Variations in scan area can profoundly impact operational efficiency. Scan area, determined by scanner-specific tissue detection algorithms, directly influences scan time, which in turn affects workflow and staff planning as well as file size, a major expense in storage and data management. This study compares tissue detection patterns across four commercial whole-slide scanner models to evaluate their effects on these metrics, using classical computer vision to establish perimeter-based benchmarks. Design: 260 routine diagnostic glass slides (balanced by hematoxylin and eosin-stained and immunohistochemistry slide types and biopsy/resection tissue types) were scanned on 8 whole-slide scanners representing 4 different commercial manufacturers (designated scanner models A-D). A classical computer vision pipeline was used to delineate the minimal tissue perimeter on each slide, which served as the reference area. Scanner area, scan time, and file size were extracted from the WSI metadata. Absolute and relative area differences were calculated, and linear regression quantified the relationship between area and downstream metrics. One-way ANOVA was used to test the differences between scanner models, stratified by slide and tissue types. Results: All 260 slides were successfully scanned, yielding 1040 WSIs. Scanner models A and B modestly overestimated tissue area with a median of 76 mm Conclusion: Tissue detection algorithms vary significantly across scanner models, affecting scan area estimates and downstream performance. Whereas not the sole determinant of throughput, scan area detection is a foundational parameter that impacts time and storage costs. In high-throughput digital pathology environments, understanding these algorithmic differences is critical for informed scanner selection recommendations and workflow optimization.

Indexed as

Clinical implementationDigital pathologyDigital storage costQuality controlScan timeTissue detectionWhole-slide imaging (WSI)

Identifiers

PMID42318449
PMCPMC13273586

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.