病理全片成像的验证

L. Pantanowitz
{"title":"病理全片成像的验证","authors":"L. Pantanowitz","doi":"10.1155/2014/476854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Validation of whole slide imaging (WSI) is an important process for clinical practice. From a vendor perspective, validation seeks to achieve premarket approval from a regulatory agency in order for them to sell their WSI devices for an intended use (e.g., primary diagnosis). Academic validations are different, as these research studies typically result in publications reporting results of a self-defined, focused validation and their findings may not be generalizable. In general, published validation studies show good concordance for diagnoses made by WSI compared to glass slides. Clinical validation in the laboratory involves documenting the process and results of a validation study for an intended clinical use. This is typically conducted in accordance with available recommendations and/or guidelines. Validation studies comparing WSI (digital slides) to glass sides (traditional light microscopy) customarily measure concordance (agreement) between these two modalities. However, this outcome measurement can be influenced by several factors including validation study design, technology used, user training, observer variability, and case difficulty. Interobserver variability is likely to be greater than intraobserver variability, as not all pathologists may agree on certain diagnoses. Several guidelines have been developed that address WSI validation, which includes the College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations developed for validating WSI for diagnostic purposes. These CAP recommendations were subsequently adopted by the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) clinical guidelines for telepathology. Practical guidelines that assist pathology laboratories seeking to validate their own WSI systems for diagnostic work not only are timely but also help promote digital pathology adoption.","PeriodicalId":313227,"journal":{"name":"Analytical Cellular Pathology (Amsterdam)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Whole Slide Imaging in Pathology\",\"authors\":\"L. Pantanowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2014/476854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Validation of whole slide imaging (WSI) is an important process for clinical practice. From a vendor perspective, validation seeks to achieve premarket approval from a regulatory agency in order for them to sell their WSI devices for an intended use (e.g., primary diagnosis). Academic validations are different, as these research studies typically result in publications reporting results of a self-defined, focused validation and their findings may not be generalizable. In general, published validation studies show good concordance for diagnoses made by WSI compared to glass slides. Clinical validation in the laboratory involves documenting the process and results of a validation study for an intended clinical use. This is typically conducted in accordance with available recommendations and/or guidelines. Validation studies comparing WSI (digital slides) to glass sides (traditional light microscopy) customarily measure concordance (agreement) between these two modalities. However, this outcome measurement can be influenced by several factors including validation study design, technology used, user training, observer variability, and case difficulty. Interobserver variability is likely to be greater than intraobserver variability, as not all pathologists may agree on certain diagnoses. Several guidelines have been developed that address WSI validation, which includes the College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations developed for validating WSI for diagnostic purposes. These CAP recommendations were subsequently adopted by the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) clinical guidelines for telepathology. Practical guidelines that assist pathology laboratories seeking to validate their own WSI systems for diagnostic work not only are timely but also help promote digital pathology adoption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytical Cellular Pathology (Amsterdam)\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytical Cellular Pathology (Amsterdam)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/476854\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical Cellular Pathology (Amsterdam)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/476854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全玻片成像(WSI)的验证是临床实践的重要过程。从供应商的角度来看,验证旨在获得监管机构的上市前批准,以便他们销售其WSI设备用于预期用途(例如,初步诊断)。学术验证是不同的,因为这些研究通常会导致出版物报告自我定义的结果,集中验证,他们的发现可能无法推广。一般来说,已发表的验证研究表明,与玻片相比,WSI诊断具有良好的一致性。实验室的临床验证包括为预期的临床用途记录验证研究的过程和结果。这通常是根据现有的建议和/或指导方针进行的。比较WSI(数字载玻片)和玻璃面(传统光学显微镜)的验证研究通常测量这两种模式之间的一致性(一致性)。然而,这种结果测量可能受到几个因素的影响,包括验证研究设计、使用的技术、用户培训、观察者变异性和病例难度。观察者之间的差异可能大于观察者内部的差异,因为并非所有的病理学家都同意某些诊断。针对WSI验证已经制定了一些指南,其中包括美国病理学家学会(CAP)为诊断目的验证WSI而制定的建议。这些CAP的建议随后被美国远程医疗协会(ATA)的远程病理学临床指南所采纳。实用指南,帮助病理实验室寻求验证自己的WSI系统诊断工作不仅是及时的,而且有助于促进数字病理学的采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of Whole Slide Imaging in Pathology
Validation of whole slide imaging (WSI) is an important process for clinical practice. From a vendor perspective, validation seeks to achieve premarket approval from a regulatory agency in order for them to sell their WSI devices for an intended use (e.g., primary diagnosis). Academic validations are different, as these research studies typically result in publications reporting results of a self-defined, focused validation and their findings may not be generalizable. In general, published validation studies show good concordance for diagnoses made by WSI compared to glass slides. Clinical validation in the laboratory involves documenting the process and results of a validation study for an intended clinical use. This is typically conducted in accordance with available recommendations and/or guidelines. Validation studies comparing WSI (digital slides) to glass sides (traditional light microscopy) customarily measure concordance (agreement) between these two modalities. However, this outcome measurement can be influenced by several factors including validation study design, technology used, user training, observer variability, and case difficulty. Interobserver variability is likely to be greater than intraobserver variability, as not all pathologists may agree on certain diagnoses. Several guidelines have been developed that address WSI validation, which includes the College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations developed for validating WSI for diagnostic purposes. These CAP recommendations were subsequently adopted by the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) clinical guidelines for telepathology. Practical guidelines that assist pathology laboratories seeking to validate their own WSI systems for diagnostic work not only are timely but also help promote digital pathology adoption.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信