ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Guidance for laboratory implementation, governance and continuous assurance of artificial intelligence in histopathology.
Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming histopathology, with applications ranging from workflow optimisation and quality assurance to tumour diagnosis, grading, biomarker assessment and estimation of prognosis. While numerous AI algorithms have demonstrated promising analytical and clinical performance, pathology laboratories are increasingly adopting commercially available AI systems with regulatory-approval rather than developing their own algorithms. Existing guidance largely focuses on AI development, validation and regulatory approval, with comparatively little practical direction on the local verification, governance and ongoing assurance required for safe routine clinical implementation. This paper proposes a practical framework for the clinical implementation of AI specifically within pathology laboratories. Rather than addressing AI development, it focuses on the responsibilities of laboratories adopting established AI systems into clinical practice. The framework distinguishes AI applications according to their intended clinical function, recognising that diagnostic applications, biomarker evaluation, workflow optimisation and generative AI applications require different implementation, verification, governance and quality assurance strategies. It further distinguishes algorithm validation, local verification and continuous assurance as complementary stages of implementation and advocates a function-based, risk-proportionate approach integrated within existing laboratory quality management systems. Practical recommendations are provided for workflow integration, interoperability, human oversight, user competency, performance monitoring, incident management, software updates and proportionate re-verification throughout the AI operational lifecycle. By extending implementation beyond regulatory approval, this guidance complements existing AI development and regulatory frameworks rather than replacing them. It provides a practical governance framework for pathology laboratories, professional organisations, accreditation bodies, and healthcare providers to support the safe, standardised, and sustainable integration of AI into routine histopathology while maintaining diagnostic quality, patient safety, and clinical governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684470What 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.