↓ Skip to main content

Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Virchows Archiv, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases
Published in
Virchows Archiv, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00428-018-2382-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva, Felipe Paiva Fonseca, Natália Rangel Palmier, Marcio Ajudarte Lopes, Paul M. Speight, Oslei Paes de Almeida, Pablo Agustin Vargas, Alan Roger Santos-Silva

Abstract

Whole slide imaging (WSI) systems are being increasingly used in educational and professional settings, highlighting the value of digital microscopy and favouring its acceptance for use in primary diagnosis. There has been a reluctance to introduce diagnostic applications due to a lack of validation and regulation of these devices. This study aims to provide information regarding the performance of WSI and to validate it for use in the diagnosis of oral diseases, using the intraobserver variability as the primary form of analysis. Seventy (n = 70) H&E-stained glass slides of oral biopsies were scanned using the Aperio Digital Pathology System at a magnification of × 20. Two experienced oral pathologists blindly analysed all H&E-stained sections with a conventional light microscope (CLM) and, after 3-month washout, with WSI. Clinical information was provided along with the cases in both analyses. The intraobserver agreement between CLM and WSI was 97% (κ = 0.9) for both pathologists. The majority of preferred diagnoses were by CLM. Both pathologists had the same discordances in different cases. Challenging cases and cases with insufficient quantity of tissue for analyses were considered the main reasons for disagreement rather than the diagnostic methods. Median time taken to make a diagnosis was higher only in CLM for one pathologist. Time outliers occurred in discordant cases and in other difficult cases. This study provides evidence of a high performance of WSI for diagnostic purposes in clinical practice, routine pathology and primary diagnosis in the field of oral pathology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,414,556
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,134
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,972
of 330,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.