↓ Skip to main content

Introduction of virtual microscopy in routine surgical pathology - a hypothesis and personal view from Europe

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Introduction of virtual microscopy in routine surgical pathology - a hypothesis and personal view from Europe
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-7-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Kayser

Abstract

The technology of whole image acquisition from histological glass slides (Virtual slides, (VS)) and its associated software such as image storage, viewers, and virtual microscopy (VM), has matured in the recent years. There is an ongoing discussion whether to introduce VM into routine diagnostic surgical pathology (tissue-based diagnosis) or not, and if these are to be introduced how best to do this. The discussion also centres around how to substantially define the mandatory standards and working conditions related to introducing VM. This article briefly describes some hypotheses alongside our perspective and that of several of our European colleagues who have experienced VS and VM either in research or routine praxis. After consideration of the different opinions and published data the following statements can be derived: 1. Experiences from static and remote telepathology as well as from daily routine diagnoses, confirm that VM is a diagnostic tool that can be handled with the same diagnostic accuracy as conventional microscopy; at least no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) exist. 2. VM possesses several practical advantages in comparison to conventional microscopy; such as digital image storage and retrieval and contemporary display of multiple images (acquired from different stains, and/or different cases). 3. VM enables fast and efficient feedback between the pathologist and the laboratory in terms of ordered additional stains, automated access to the latest research for references, and fast consultation with outstanding telepathology experts. 4. Industry has already invested "big money" into this technology which certainly will be of influence in its future development. The main constraints against VM include the questionable reimbursement of the initial investment, the missing direct and short term financial benefit, and the loss of potential biological identity between the patient and the examined tissue. This article tries to analyze and evaluate the factors that influence the implementation of VM into routine tissue-based diagnosis, for example in combination with predictive diagnosis. It focuses on describing the advantages of modern and innovative electronically based communication technology.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Czechia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 36 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Computer Science 5 12%
Engineering 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 20%
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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,726,101
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#486
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,656
of 162,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 162,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.