With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnostics, AI algorithms have shown great potential in aiding diagnostics. As more of these algorithms are developed, there is overwhelming enthusiasm for implementing digital and artificial intelligence-based pathology (DAIP), but doubts and pitfalls are also emerging. However, few original or review articles address the limitations and practical aspects of implementing DAIP. In this review, we briefly examine the evidence related to the benefits and pitfalls of DAIP implementation and argue that DAIP is not suitable for every clinical laboratory.
We searched the PubMed database using the following keywords: “digital pathology,” “digital AI pathology,” and “AI pathology.”. Additionally, we incorporated personal experiences and manually searched related papers.
Ninety-two publications were found, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Many advantages of DAIP were discussed, including improved diagnostic accuracy and equity. However, several limitations of implementing DAIP exist, such as financial constraints, technical challenges, and legal/ethical concerns.
DAIP is not suitable for every clinical laboratory, and a balance between its benefits (e.g., improved diagnostic accuracy) and pitfalls (e.g., substantial implementation costs and legal ambiguities) must be carefully weighed against an institution’s resources and goals before adoption. This review has inherent limitations, such as a restricted literature search to PubMed and English-language studies, which should be considered when interpreting the conclusions.
Full article