↓ Skip to main content

Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pathology Informatics, July 2016
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

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review
Published in
Journal of Pathology Informatics, July 2016
DOI 10.4103/2153-3539.186917
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ida Cervin, Jesper Molin, Claes Lundström

Abstract

Today, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and report the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden. We explored the possibility to have a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring. The interface was designed to reduce the need to retain partial findings in the head or on paper, while at the same time be structured enough to support automatic extraction of key findings for follow-up registry reporting. The final prototype was evaluated with two pathologists, diagnosing complicated partial mastectomy cases. The pathologists experienced that the prototype aided them during the review and that it created a better overall workflow. These results show that it is feasible to simplify the reporting tasks in a way that is not distracting, while at the same time being able to automatically extract the key findings. This simplification is possible due to the realization that the structured format needed for automatic extraction of data can be used to offload the pathologists' working memory during the diagnostic review.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 45%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Unspecified 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 8 28%
Computer Science 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Unspecified 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
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 27 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pathology Informatics
#226
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,211
of 380,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pathology Informatics
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 380,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.