ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
A guide for the deployment, validation, and accreditation of clinical digital pathology tools.
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. 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
Digital pathology (DP) has become an integral part of modern diagnostic practice, enabling efficient workflows, reproducible assessments, and the integration of computational tools. Whereas many institutions are transitioning toward digital diagnostics, deployment, validation, and routine usage of DP tools in clinical settings remains a major challenge. Existing recommendations often remain high-level, leaving laboratories without detailed, practical guidance on how to structure and document validation processes in real-world settings. To address this gap, we present a framework derived from the experience of Geneva University Hospitals (HUG), which since 2019 has operated a fully digital primary diagnostic workflow processing more than 230,000 slides annually. Drawing on this implementation, we outline best practices and lessons learned for the development, deployment, validation, and accreditation of DP tools. Document templates are also provided, which may serve as adaptable blueprints for other laboratories. This practical guide is intended to support reproducible, transparent, and audit-ready validation processes, helping institutions bridge the gap between general recommendations and operational deployment of DP tools in accredited diagnostic environments.
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.