Artificial intelligence in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Ensuring diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) before introduction into clinical practice is essential. Growing numbers of studies using AI for digital pathology have been reported over recent years. The aim of this work is to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI in digital pathology images for any disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis included diagnostic accuracy studies using any type of AI applied to whole slide images (WSIs) for any disease. The reference standard was diagnosis by histopathological assessment and/or immunohistochemistry. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL in June 2022. Risk of bias and concerns of applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data extraction was conducted by two investigators and meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model, with additional subgroup analyses also performed. Of 2976 identified studies, 100 were included in the review and 48 in the meta-analysis. Studies were from a range of countries, including over 152,000 whole slide images (WSIs), representing many diseases. These studies reported a mean sensitivity of 96.3% (CI 94.1-97.7) and mean specificity of 93.3% (CI 90.5-95.4). There was heterogeneity in study design and 99% of studies identified for inclusion had at least one area at high or unclear risk of bias or applicability concerns. Details on selection of cases, division of model development and validation data and raw performance data were frequently ambiguous or missing. AI is reported as having high diagnostic accuracy in the reported areas but requires more rigorous evaluation of its performance.

Survey of liver pathologists to assess attitudes towards digital pathology and artificial intelligence.

AIMS: A survey of members of the UK Liver Pathology Group (UKLPG) was conducted, comprising consultant histopathologists from across the UK who report liver specimens and participate in the UK National Liver Pathology External Quality Assurance scheme. The aim of this study was to understand attitudes and priorities of liver pathologists towards digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI). METHODS: The survey was distributed to all full consultant members of the UKLPG via email. This comprised 50 questions, with 48 multiple choice questions and 2 free-text questions at the end, covering a range of topics and concepts pertaining to the use of digital pathology and AI in liver disease. RESULTS: Forty-two consultant histopathologists completed the survey, representing 36% of fully registered members of the UKLPG (42/116). Questions examining digital pathology showed respondents agreed with the utility of digital pathology for primary diagnosis 83% (34/41), second opinions 90% (37/41), research 85% (35/41) and training and education 95% (39/41). Fatty liver diseases were an area of demand for AI tools with 80% in agreement (33/41), followed by neoplastic liver diseases with 59% in agreement (24/41). Participants were concerned about AI development without pathologist involvement 73% (30/41), however, 63% (26/41) disagreed when asked whether AI would replace pathologists. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines current interest, priorities for research and concerns around digital pathology and AI for liver pathologists. The majority of UK liver pathologists are in favour of the application of digital pathology and AI in clinical practice, research and education.

Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Pathology Abstracts: Compliance with STARD for Abstracts Guidelines.

Artificial intelligence (AI) research is transforming the range tools and technologies available to pathologists, leading to potentially faster, personalized and more accurate diagnoses for patients. However, to see the use of tools for patient benefit and achieve this safely, the implementation of any algorithm must be underpinned by high quality evidence from research that is understandable, replicable, usable and inclusive of details needed for critical appraisal of potential bias. Evidence suggests that reporting guidelines can improve the completeness of reporting of research, especially with good awareness of guidelines. The quality of evidence provided by abstracts alone is profoundly important, as they influence the decision of a researcher to read a paper, attend a conference presentation or include a study in a systematic review. AI abstracts at two international pathology conferences were assessed to establish completeness of reporting against the STARD for Abstracts criteria. This reporting guideline is for abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies and includes a checklist of 11 essential items required to accomplish satisfactory reporting of such an investigation. A total of 3488 abstracts were screened from the United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meeting 2019 and the 31st European Congress of Pathology (ESP Congress). Of these, 51 AI diagnostic accuracy abstracts were identified and assessed against the STARD for Abstracts criteria for completeness of reporting. Completeness of reporting was suboptimal for the 11 essential criteria, a mean of 5.8 (SD 1.5) items were detailed per abstract. Inclusion was variable across the different checklist items, with all abstracts including study objectives and no abstracts including a registration number or registry. Greater use and awareness of the STARD for Abstracts criteria could improve completeness of reporting and further consideration is needed for areas where AI studies are vulnerable to bias.

Guidelines for clinical trials using artificial intelligence - SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI†.

The rapidly growing use of artificial intelligence in pathology presents a challenge in terms of study reporting and methodology. The existing guidelines for the design (SPIRIT) and reporting (CONSORT) of clinical trials have been extended with the aim of ensuring production of the highest quality evidence in this field. We explore these new guidelines and their relevance and application to pathology as a specialty. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.