Pith. sign in

REVIEW

CountPath: Automating Fragment Counting in Digital Pathology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.10520 v1 pith:PL6NTHSG submitted 2025-03-13 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

CountPath: Automating Fragment Counting in Digital Pathology

classification cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG
keywords automatedcountingnumberpathologyprocessaccuracyachievesapproach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quality control of medical images is a critical component of digital pathology, ensuring that diagnostic images meet required standards. A pre-analytical task within this process is the verification of the number of specimen fragments, a process that ensures that the number of fragments on a slide matches the number documented in the macroscopic report. This step is important to ensure that the slides contain the appropriate diagnostic material from the grossing process, thereby guaranteeing the accuracy of subsequent microscopic examination and diagnosis. Traditionally, this assessment is performed manually, requiring significant time and effort while being subject to significant variability due to its subjective nature. To address these challenges, this study explores an automated approach to fragment counting using the YOLOv9 and Vision Transformer models. Our results demonstrate that the automated system achieves a level of performance comparable to expert assessments, offering a reliable and efficient alternative to manual counting. Additionally, we present findings on interobserver variability, showing that the automated approach achieves an accuracy of 86%, which falls within the range of variation observed among experts (82-88%), further supporting its potential for integration into routine pathology workflows.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.