PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 29, 2009The Journal of Pathology65 citations

Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment

View Full Paper
PHPeter W. HamiltonQueen's University BelfastPDP. J. van DiestLeiden UniversityRWRichard WilliamsClinical Trials New Zealand

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Reliable pathological interpretation is vital to so many aspects of tissue-based research as well as being central to patient care. Understanding the complex processes involved in decision-making is the starting point to improve both diagnostic reproducibility and the definition of diagnostic groups that underpin our experiments. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research in this field and it is encouraging to see The Journal of Pathology publishing work in this area. This review attempts to highlight the opportunities that exist in this field and the technologies that are now available to support this type of research. Key amongst these are the use of decision analysis tools such as inference networks, and virtual microscopy that allows us to simulate diagnostic decision-making. These tools have roles, not only in studying the subtleties of diagnostic decision-making, but also in delivering new methods of training and proficiency testing. Research which helps us to better understand what we see, why we see it, and standardizing interpretative reasoning in pathological classification is essential for improving the wide range of activities that pathologists support, including clinical diagnosis, teaching, training, and experimental research.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hamilton et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a12169492637892a9a5ddd2https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2527
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper