Digital pathology professional#

Examined by a pathologist, these slides are a qualitative (yes/no) to the presence of cancer. Unlike a blood or urine sample which produces a quantitative result, the typical cancer biopsy will have around 20 slices stained with H&E. Pathology is considered the most subjective science, with reasons being that the majority of specimens examined are qualitative in nature, complimented by a myriad of issues relating to pathologist training, population characteristics and other factors. And at the same time, how digital pathology can play an important role in improving workflow and standard of care.Ĭost Reduction | Time Savings | Clinical Enhancement Comparing the Key Advantages and Disadvantages of ARM in Digital Pathology Quantitative vs Qualitative – Digital vs Analog When understanding why pathology is different from other diagnostic sciences, it becomes clear how correct the 90/10 rule is and where the disadvantages lay. The value of digital pathology today is likely greatly overstated, stemming from an approach that uses brute force to solve the problems of subjectivity and low reproducibility.Īlternatively, digital pathology can bring cost savings, improvements in care and enhanced levels of lab efficiency, yet likely only when done in a manner that takes into account the unique workflow and characteristics of pathology. Overstated Value of Digital Pathology? Or… Misunderstood AdvantagesĪs in many arguments, both sides may be correct. Moreover, at a time when the discussion on the benefits of digital pathology is taking place in every pathology lab, even the most forward-thinking labs like Memorial Sloan Kettering – which has a standard operating procedure of scanning all slides – still have microscopes on the desk of their pathologists? How does this push to rid the microscope from the pathologists’ desk work with the many pathologists who prefer the microscope? Yet today, where computational methodologies and remote consultations have become a must-have for practitioners, there is validity in questioning the role of the old microscope in pathology, and seeking digital technologies to improve quality and efficiency of care. The stalwart of pathology is the glass microscope, an analog device of glass and light, and a relic of the pre-digital era when there was no concept of digitally correlating patient information with diagnostic results or using AI to automate the workflow. For over 100 years, pathology has been practiced in almost the exact same method, earning it the distinction of being the most subjective science, and stubbornly disconnected from the digital health revolution.

The 90/10 rule leaves us to question… Are existing digital pathology solutions providing true clinical and economic value for pathology labs? AN HONEST LOOK AT PATHOLOGY, AND THE ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF DIGITAL

This statement, which typically generates laughter and nods of agreement when told to pathologists, leaves one to question the advantages of digital pathology, and forces one to ask if the disadvantages of the transition to digital pathology outweigh the benefits.

Digital pathology professional#

Taught to a young marketing professional by an older pathologist at a tradeshow, the 90/10 rule of pathology states that in 90% of instances the pathologist doesn’t need any digital pathology assistance in reaching a diagnosis, and in the remaining 10%, that digital help wouldn’t be of any clinical value. An in-depth review of the often overlooked and unspoken advantages and disadvantages of digital pathology versus microscopy “In 90% of instances I don’t need you, and in 10% I don’t trust you.”