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

Peter W. Hamilton, Paul J. Van Diest, Richard Williams, Anthony G. Gallagher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)285-291
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Pathology
Volume218
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Research
Decision Support Techniques
Microscopy
Patient Care
Teaching
Pathology
Technology
Pathologists

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Decision-making
  • Diagnosis
  • Error
  • Informatics
  • Morphology
  • Psychology
  • Simulation
  • Virtual microscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Hamilton, P. W., Van Diest, P. J., Williams, R., & Gallagher, A. G. (2009). Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment. Journal of Pathology, 218(3), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2527

Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment. / Hamilton, Peter W.; Van Diest, Paul J.; Williams, Richard; Gallagher, Anthony G.

In: Journal of Pathology, Vol. 218, No. 3, 07.2009, p. 285-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hamilton, PW, Van Diest, PJ, Williams, R & Gallagher, AG 2009, 'Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment', Journal of Pathology, vol. 218, no. 3, pp. 285-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2527
Hamilton, Peter W. ; Van Diest, Paul J. ; Williams, Richard ; Gallagher, Anthony G. / Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment. In: Journal of Pathology. 2009 ; Vol. 218, No. 3. pp. 285-291.
@article{896469cd03d94eea8c85bd240d7ce67c,
title = "Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment",
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.",
keywords = "Bias, Decision-making, Diagnosis, Error, Informatics, Morphology, Psychology, Simulation, Virtual microscopy",
author = "Hamilton, {Peter W.} and {Van Diest}, {Paul J.} and Richard Williams and Gallagher, {Anthony G.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1002/path.2527",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "218",
pages = "285--291",
journal = "Journal of Pathology",
issn = "0022-3417",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do we see what we think we see? The complexities of morphological assessment

AU - Hamilton, Peter W.

AU - Van Diest, Paul J.

AU - Williams, Richard

AU - Gallagher, Anthony G.

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Bias

KW - Decision-making

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Error

KW - Informatics

KW - Morphology

KW - Psychology

KW - Simulation

KW - Virtual microscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650079903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650079903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/path.2527

DO - 10.1002/path.2527

M3 - Article

VL - 218

SP - 285

EP - 291

JO - Journal of Pathology

JF - Journal of Pathology

SN - 0022-3417

IS - 3

ER -