一项多中心研究,评估病理学家使用 Aperio GT 450 DX 的分析精度

Thomas W. Bauer , Matthew G. Hanna , Kelly D. Smith , S. Joseph Sirintrapun , Meera R. Hameed , Deepti Reddi , Bernard S. Chang , Orly Ardon , Xiaozhi Zhou , Jenny V. Lewis , Shubham Dayal , Joseph Chiweshe , David Ferber , Aysegul Ergin Sutcu , Michael White
{"title":"一项多中心研究,评估病理学家使用 Aperio GT 450 DX 的分析精度","authors":"Thomas W. Bauer ,&nbsp;Matthew G. Hanna ,&nbsp;Kelly D. Smith ,&nbsp;S. Joseph Sirintrapun ,&nbsp;Meera R. Hameed ,&nbsp;Deepti Reddi ,&nbsp;Bernard S. Chang ,&nbsp;Orly Ardon ,&nbsp;Xiaozhi Zhou ,&nbsp;Jenny V. Lewis ,&nbsp;Shubham Dayal ,&nbsp;Joseph Chiweshe ,&nbsp;David Ferber ,&nbsp;Aysegul Ergin Sutcu ,&nbsp;Michael White","doi":"10.1016/j.jpi.2024.100401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Digital pathology systems (DPS) are emerging as capable technologies for clinical practice. Studies have analyzed pathologists' diagnostic concordance by comparing reviews of whole slide images (WSIs) to glass slides (e.g., accuracy). This observational study evaluated the reproducibility of pathologists' diagnostic reviews using the Aperio GT 450 DX under slightly different conditions (precision).</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Diagnostic precision was tested in three conditions: intra-system (within systems), inter-system/site (between systems/sites), and intra- and inter-pathologist (within and between pathologists). A total of five study/reading pathologists (one pathologist each for intra-system, inter-system/site, and three for intra-pathologist/inter-pathologist analyses) were assigned to the respective sub-studies.</div><div>A panel of 69 glass slides with 23 unique histological features was used to evaluate the WSI system's precision. Each glass slide was scanned to generate a unique WSI. From each WSI, the field of view (FOV) was generated (at least 2 FOVs/WSI), which included the selected features (1–3 features/FOV). Each pathologist reviewed the digital slides and identified which morphological features, if any, were present in each defined FOV. To minimize recall bias, an additional 12 wild card slides from different organ types were used for which FOVs were extracted. The pathologists also read these wild card slides FOVs; however, the corresponding feature identification was not included in the final data analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each measured endpoint met the pre-defined acceptance criteria of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) overall agreement (OA) rate being ≥85% for each sub-study. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the intra-system OA rate was 95.8%; for inter-system analysis, it was 94.9%; for intra-pathologist analysis, 92.4%, whereas for inter-pathologist analyses, the lower bound of the 95% CI of the OA was 90.6%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study results indicate that pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX WSI system can precisely identify histological features that may be required for accurately diagnosing anatomic pathology cases.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37769,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","volume":"15 ","pages":"Article 100401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A multicenter study to evaluate the analytical precision by pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX\",\"authors\":\"Thomas W. Bauer ,&nbsp;Matthew G. Hanna ,&nbsp;Kelly D. Smith ,&nbsp;S. Joseph Sirintrapun ,&nbsp;Meera R. Hameed ,&nbsp;Deepti Reddi ,&nbsp;Bernard S. Chang ,&nbsp;Orly Ardon ,&nbsp;Xiaozhi Zhou ,&nbsp;Jenny V. Lewis ,&nbsp;Shubham Dayal ,&nbsp;Joseph Chiweshe ,&nbsp;David Ferber ,&nbsp;Aysegul Ergin Sutcu ,&nbsp;Michael White\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpi.2024.100401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Digital pathology systems (DPS) are emerging as capable technologies for clinical practice. Studies have analyzed pathologists' diagnostic concordance by comparing reviews of whole slide images (WSIs) to glass slides (e.g., accuracy). This observational study evaluated the reproducibility of pathologists' diagnostic reviews using the Aperio GT 450 DX under slightly different conditions (precision).</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Diagnostic precision was tested in three conditions: intra-system (within systems), inter-system/site (between systems/sites), and intra- and inter-pathologist (within and between pathologists). A total of five study/reading pathologists (one pathologist each for intra-system, inter-system/site, and three for intra-pathologist/inter-pathologist analyses) were assigned to the respective sub-studies.</div><div>A panel of 69 glass slides with 23 unique histological features was used to evaluate the WSI system's precision. Each glass slide was scanned to generate a unique WSI. From each WSI, the field of view (FOV) was generated (at least 2 FOVs/WSI), which included the selected features (1–3 features/FOV). Each pathologist reviewed the digital slides and identified which morphological features, if any, were present in each defined FOV. To minimize recall bias, an additional 12 wild card slides from different organ types were used for which FOVs were extracted. The pathologists also read these wild card slides FOVs; however, the corresponding feature identification was not included in the final data analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each measured endpoint met the pre-defined acceptance criteria of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) overall agreement (OA) rate being ≥85% for each sub-study. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the intra-system OA rate was 95.8%; for inter-system analysis, it was 94.9%; for intra-pathologist analysis, 92.4%, whereas for inter-pathologist analyses, the lower bound of the 95% CI of the OA was 90.6%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study results indicate that pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX WSI system can precisely identify histological features that may be required for accurately diagnosing anatomic pathology cases.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100401\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景数字病理系统(DPS)正在成为临床实践的有效技术。有研究通过比较全切片图像(WSI)和玻璃切片的审查结果(如准确性)来分析病理学家的诊断一致性。本观察性研究评估了病理学家在略有不同的条件下使用 Aperio GT 450 DX 进行诊断审查的可重复性(精确性)。方法在三种条件下测试了诊断精确性:系统内(系统内部)、系统间/站点间(系统/站点之间)以及病理学家内部和病理学家之间(病理学家内部和病理学家之间)。共有五名研究/阅片病理学家(系统内、系统间/病理点各一名,病理学家内/病理学家间分析各三名)被分配到相应的子研究中。对每张玻璃玻片进行扫描,生成唯一的 WSI。从每个 WSI 生成视场(FOV)(至少 2 个 FOV/WSI),其中包括选定的特征(1-3 个特征/FOV)。每位病理学家查看数字切片,确定每个定义的视场(FOV)中存在哪些形态特征(如果有的话)。为了尽量减少回忆偏差,病理学家还使用了另外 12 张来自不同器官类型的通配切片来提取 FOV。结果每一项测量终点均符合预先设定的接受标准,即每项子研究的95%置信区间(CI)总体一致性(OA)率下限≥85%。系统内 OA 率的 95% CI 下限为 95.8%;系统间分析的 OA 率为 94.9%;病理学家内部分析的 OA 率为 92.4%,而病理学家间分析的 OA 率的 95% CI 下限为 90.6%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A multicenter study to evaluate the analytical precision by pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX

Background

Digital pathology systems (DPS) are emerging as capable technologies for clinical practice. Studies have analyzed pathologists' diagnostic concordance by comparing reviews of whole slide images (WSIs) to glass slides (e.g., accuracy). This observational study evaluated the reproducibility of pathologists' diagnostic reviews using the Aperio GT 450 DX under slightly different conditions (precision).

Method

Diagnostic precision was tested in three conditions: intra-system (within systems), inter-system/site (between systems/sites), and intra- and inter-pathologist (within and between pathologists). A total of five study/reading pathologists (one pathologist each for intra-system, inter-system/site, and three for intra-pathologist/inter-pathologist analyses) were assigned to the respective sub-studies.
A panel of 69 glass slides with 23 unique histological features was used to evaluate the WSI system's precision. Each glass slide was scanned to generate a unique WSI. From each WSI, the field of view (FOV) was generated (at least 2 FOVs/WSI), which included the selected features (1–3 features/FOV). Each pathologist reviewed the digital slides and identified which morphological features, if any, were present in each defined FOV. To minimize recall bias, an additional 12 wild card slides from different organ types were used for which FOVs were extracted. The pathologists also read these wild card slides FOVs; however, the corresponding feature identification was not included in the final data analysis.

Results

Each measured endpoint met the pre-defined acceptance criteria of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) overall agreement (OA) rate being ≥85% for each sub-study. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the intra-system OA rate was 95.8%; for inter-system analysis, it was 94.9%; for intra-pathologist analysis, 92.4%, whereas for inter-pathologist analyses, the lower bound of the 95% CI of the OA was 90.6%.

Conclusion

The study results indicate that pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX WSI system can precisely identify histological features that may be required for accurately diagnosing anatomic pathology cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pathology Informatics
Journal of Pathology Informatics Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pathology Informatics (JPI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the advancement of pathology informatics. This is the official journal of the Association for Pathology Informatics (API). The journal aims to publish broadly about pathology informatics and freely disseminate all articles worldwide. This journal is of interest to pathologists, informaticians, academics, researchers, health IT specialists, information officers, IT staff, vendors, and anyone with an interest in informatics. We encourage submissions from anyone with an interest in the field of pathology informatics. We publish all types of papers related to pathology informatics including original research articles, technical notes, reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, editorials, symposia, meeting abstracts, book reviews, and correspondence to the editors. All submissions are subject to rigorous peer review by the well-regarded editorial board and by expert referees in appropriate specialties.
期刊最新文献
Improving the generalizability of white blood cell classification with few-shot domain adaptation Pathology Informatics Summit 2024 Abstracts Ann Arbor Marriott at Eagle Crest Resort May 20-23, 2024 Ann Arbor, Michigan Deep learning-based classification of breast cancer molecular subtypes from H&E whole-slide images. Enhancing human phenotype ontology term extraction through synthetic case reports and embedding-based retrieval: A novel approach for improved biomedical data annotation. Prioritizing cases from a multi-institutional cohort for a dataset of pathologist annotations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1