Digital Pathology Podcast

Aleksandra Zuraw, DVM, PhD

Aleksandra Zuraw from Digital Pathology Place discusses digital pathology from the basic concepts to the newest developments, including image analysis and artificial intelligence. She reviews scientific literature and together with her guests discusses the current industry and research digital pathology trends.

  1. 3d ago

    240: Computational Pathology Is Changing Companion Diagnostics

    Send us Fan Mail Can a treatment decision depend on whether one pathologist sees 45% biomarker positivity and another sees 55%? Visual immunohistochemistry scoring helped establish precision oncology. But as targeted therapies become more sensitive to subtle biological differences, categorical scores such as 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ may no longer capture the information needed to identify the right patients. In this episode, I speak with three Roche experts: Gordana Juric-Sekhar, MD, anatomic pathologistSaleh Miri, PhD, Director of Digital Pathology AI AlgorithmsPurvi Gaglani, Regulatory Affairs Lead for Digital PathologyWe discuss how computational pathology is changing companion diagnostics by moving biomarker assessment from visual estimates to continuous, cell-level measurements. The conversation examines the limitations of manual IHC scoring, including interobserver variability, intraobserver variability, visual fatigue, borderline cases, tumor heterogeneity, and the inability of the human eye to measure complex spatial relationships. Using TROP2 scoring in advanced non-small cell lung cancer as an example, Saleh explains the normalized membrane ratio. This computational metric measures protein expression at the cell membrane relative to total expression within the cell—something that can’t be reproduced through conventional visual scoring. We also clarify the difference between computer-assisted scoring and a fully computational companion diagnostic. An assisted tool supports a pathologist’s visual interpretation. A computational CDx generates the biomarker measurement through algorithmic, cell-level analysis. That doesn’t remove the pathologist. Pathologists remain responsible for evaluating tissue quality, staining quality, scan quality, tumor selection, image analysis results, and the final clinical context. They can reject a stain, request a rescan, exclude inappropriate regions, question the result, or seek a second opinion. The episode also examines the regulatory implications of computational companion diagnostics. Instead of evaluating a single IHC assay, regulators may need to assess the complete system - from tissue preparation and staining to scanning, image management, algorithmic analysis, display, and the final biomarker report. Finally, we discuss what laboratories will need to implement these workflows, including validated scanning infrastructure, cybersecurity, tighter preanalytical process control, and training that helps pathologists interpret continuous computational measurements. Episode Highlights 00:00 — Pathologists remain central to computational CDx Why computational tools provide more precise measurements without replacing pathology expertise.01:09 — Why companion diagnostics are changing Visual IHC scoring helped launch precision oncology, but the model is approaching its limits.04:53 — The current companion diagnostic landscape How IHC, next-generation sequencing, liquid biopsy, and visual biomarker scoring are used today.07:01 — The mathematical burden placed on the human eye Why manually assessing tens of thousands of tumor cells requires pathologists to estimate rather than calculate.08:39 — The borderline patient dilemma A digital tool can distinguish measurements such as 74% and 76%, while that difference is difficult to reproduce visually.09:27 — Why spatial context matters Computational pathology can measure biomarker heterogeneity, clustering, and relationships between tumor and immune cells.12:17 — Where manual scoring reaches its limits Interobserver variability, intraobserver variability, fatigue, staining interpretation, and heterogeneous tumors.18:29 — Moving from judgment calls to quantified measurements Why the next stage of precision oncology requires information beyond human visual perception.19:14 — Computer-assisted scoring versus computational CDx The important distinction between helping a pathologist calculate an existing score and generating a new algorithmic measurement.23:22 — Computational pathology and decentralized workflows How digital images can support remote review, access to expertise, and second opinions.27:48 — Why therapies require higher-resolution biomarkers Modern targeted treatments may respond to biological differences that categorical scoring can’t capture.32:09 — TROP2 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer The episode’s example of a biomarker requiring computational measurement.33:26 — Understanding the normalized membrane ratio How the algorithm measures membrane expression relative to total protein expression at the individual-cell level.35:46 — Working with regulators on a new diagnostic model Purvi discusses global health authority engagement and the FDA Breakthrough Device Designation.38:33 — The computational CDx as a system of systems Why staining, scanning, image management, algorithms, displays, and reporting must be evaluated together.40:11 — Changes to validated workflow components How using a different scanner, monitor, or other component could fall outside the defined device configuration.43:30 — Why computational pathology is becoming necessary Continuous measurements can reveal biomarker-treatment relationships that may remain hidden within categorical scores.49:12 — The pathologist’s role in the workflow Reviewing sample, staining, scan, image, algorithmic analysis, and the final biomarker result.53:39 — Digital second opinions How image management systems can simplify collaboration without physically transporting glass slides.56:43 — What laboratories need to prepare Validated infrastructure, cybersecurity, preanalytical control, training, and digital pathology literacy.58:49 — Learning to interpret computational results The shift from visually estimated categories to continuous, quantitative biomarker measurements. Resources Mentioned Full discussion on YouTube: https://youtu.be/oKW1xC6TTZgListen to the full discussion to understand how computational pathology could change companion diagnostics—and what pathologists, laboratories, and regulators must prepare for next. Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  2. Jul 29

    245: Why Going Slow Is Killing Digital Pathology Adoption | Syed T. Hoda, M.D.

    Send us Fan Mail Is your digital pathology rollout moving so slowly that it’s creating a fragmented workflow instead of transforming the department? In this episode of the Digital Pathology Podcast, I speak with Dr. Syed Hoda, Director of Digital Pathology at NYU, about why gradual implementation may no longer be the best approach to digital pathology adoption. Dr. Hoda explains how NYU used an intensive nine-month planning period to prepare for a department-wide transition. The process involved pathology, IT, project managers, vendors, hospital leadership, and approximately 40–50 people participating in regular planning calls. This wasn’t simply a scanner installation. The team mapped workflows, configured Epic Beaker, redesigned laboratory spaces, tested integrations, planned training, and addressed the practical concerns of nearly 100 pathologists. We also discuss why scanner specifications may matter less than integration, vendor support, training, and system performance. For Dr. Hoda, digital pathology had to work as smoothly as glass microscopy. Speed was non-negotiable. Change management played an equally important role. Through open discussions, town halls, and the ADKAR framework, the team addressed concerns ranging from ergonomics to the loss of collaborative microscope sessions. The result? Every pathologist adopted the digital workflow, no one left the department because of the transition, and approximately 60–65 pathologists now work remotely using equipment that matches their office setup. Finally, we examine the next step: artificial intelligence in pathology. Dr. Hoda explains why NYU focused on building a reliable digital foundation before introducing AI. He also raises important questions about validation, transparency, responsibility, regulatory clearance, and the need for greater pathologist involvement in AI development. Episode Highlights 00:00 — Are we repeating the same mistakes with pathology AI? Dr. Hoda compares the current excitement around AI with the early promises made about digital pathology 15 years ago.01:04 — Meet Dr. Syed Hoda His clinical pathology background and path to becoming NYU’s Director of Digital Pathology.03:16 — Why going slowly can hold departments back How partial adoption creates fragmented workflows, inconsistent training, and prolonged implementation.06:25 — Leadership support for rapid adoption Why institutional commitment, resources, and an ambitious timeline made the project possible.10:13 — Nine months of detailed planning Workflow mapping, laboratory changes, system configuration, vendor selection, testing, and validation.11:48 — The role of professional project management Why pathologists shouldn’t be expected to coordinate every part of a complex digital transformation.14:29 — Why the scanner isn’t the most important decision Image quality matters, but integration, service, training, and workflow fit may matter more.17:42 — People matter more than machines How vendor relationships and departmental engagement supported adoption.19:19 — Setting clear expectations across the department NYU communicated that every pathologist would move to digital sign-out within a defined period.20:49 — Change management is a structured process How the ADKAR framework guided communication, education, adoption, and reinforcement.25:07 — Addressing practical and personal concerns From mouse ergonomics to preserving collaborative case review between pathologists.27:19 — Why NYU didn’t introduce AI first Dr. Hoda explains why pathologists needed to become comfortable with the digital platform before adding new AI tools.29:26 — Digital pathology and remote sign-out Approximately 60–65 pathologists now work remotely with equipment matching their office setup.30:28 — Why speed is non-negotiable Even a small delay or repeated pixelation can quickly undermine confidence in a digital workflow.33:25 — A cautious approach to pathology AI Concerns about premature adoption, self-validation, limited regulatory clearance, and lack of pathologist involvement.37:27 — Scientific validation, transparency, and responsibility What happens when the AI result and the pathologist’s interpretation don’t agree?40:41 — Where AI could meaningfully augment pathology Quantifying microenvironments, feature combinations, ratios, and findings that are difficult to assess visually.Resources Mentioned ADKAR change management frameworkDigital Pathology AssociationExecutive War CollegeFDA list of AI-powered medical devicesA radiology mock-trial paper examining responsibility when clinicians use AI: Examining perceptions of liability about AI in radiology (MedRxiv)Why AI cannot do good science without humans (Nature Editorial)A previous Digital Pathology Podcast discussion about AI-supported colorectal cancer feature analysis (How to use deep learning image analysis for colon cancer with Rish Pai)Listen to the full conversation for a practical look at digital pathology planning, change management, remote sign-out, scanner integration, and responsible AI adoption. Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  3. Jul 22

    244: Why AI Still Hasn't Revolutionized Drug Discovery (Yet) | Thibault Geoui, PhD

    Send us Fan Mail If AI is already being used across the drug development pipeline, why hasn’t its impact matched the investment? AI can help researchers review scientific literature, predict protein structures, prioritize molecules, assess toxicity, support clinical trials, and monitor adverse events. But access to better tools doesn’t automatically create better drugs. In this episode, I speak with Thibault Geoui, Science CDO and host of the Tech & Drugs Podcast, about where AI is making a practical difference in drug discovery and development—and where the results remain limited.  We map AI across the full drug development funnel, from basic research and target identification to preclinical testing, clinical trials, regulatory documentation, commercialization, and pharmacovigilance. We also discuss why digital-native tech-bio companies may be better positioned to benefit from AI than traditional pharmaceutical organizations. The difference isn’t simply the model. It’s how data, people, laboratory experiments, and AI tools are connected inside the workflow. For digital pathology professionals, the conversation becomes especially relevant when we examine AI-powered biomarker development, the role of pathology in pharmaceutical research, and the Roche–PathAI case discussed in the episode. And, of course, we talk about the problem every AI user eventually faces: an answer can look polished, specific, and completely convincing—and still be wrong. Episode Highlights 00:00 — When convincing AI output creates more work Why AI can accelerate information generation while increasing the time required for review and verification. 02:15 — From structural biology to science and technology leadership Thibault shares his background in X-ray crystallography, structural biology, scientific data, and digital product development. 15:36 — Understanding the drug discovery and development funnel How thousands of potential compounds are narrowed down through discovery, preclinical research, clinical trials, and approval. 20:00 — AI for scientific literature review How alerts, filtering, summarization, and information extraction can help researchers manage a rapidly growing scientific literature base. 22:32 — AlphaFold and protein structure prediction What faster access to predicted protein structures changes for researchers—and why structural prediction alone doesn’t solve drug discovery. 24:13 — Searching an enormous chemical space How AI can help design and prioritize potential molecules for synthesis and experimental testing. 25:50 — Predicting efficacy and toxicity Where AI supports preclinical research, why the models remain imperfect, and why experimental validation still matters. 29:38 — Has AI changed drug development outcomes yet? A practical discussion about drug approval rates, AI investment, uneven returns, and the difference between deploying a tool and integrating it into a process. 34:33 — Why traditional pharma struggles to scale AI Siloed data, legacy systems, organizational complexity, and the need to build reusable data workflows. 37:57 — The “lab in the loop” model How tech-bio companies connect AI predictions with wet-lab experiments and feed the new data back into their models. 44:37 — Can tech-bio companies shorten development timelines? How digital-native organizations are changing parts of the discovery and preclinical process. 58:00 — AI, pharma, and digital pathology What the Roche–PathAI case discussed in the episode may indicate about the role of pathology data, biomarker discovery, and pharmaceutical workflows. 01:06:17 — AI errors in regulated environments Why responsibility remains with the person or company submitting AI-assisted work, regardless of which tool produced it. 01:17:37 — The growing cost of AI tools Subscriptions, token limits, model selection, AI orchestrators, and the need to use expensive tools more intentionally. 01:27:50 — What successful AI adoption requires Starting with focused pilots, training scientists and technologists together, and treating implementation as organizational change. 01:30:26 — The AI quirks that still frustrate users Hallucinated information, ignored writing instructions, stylistic habits, and poor awareness of time and context. The episode’s timestamped themes and examples are documented in the supplied summary. The broader discussion covers AI from literature mining and molecular design through clinical development and post-market monitoring.  Resources Mentioned  Thibault Geoui’s LinkedIn profile Tech & Drugs PodcastMIT NANDA study on generative AI implementation and return on investment Insilico Medicine as an example of a digital-native tech-bio company AI is already changing how scientific work gets done. The bigger question is whether organizations can redesign their workflows, train their teams, and maintain the human oversight needed to use it well. Listen to the full episode for a practical look at AI in drug discovery, drug development, and digital pathology. Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  4. Jul 2

    243: How to Teach AI to Healthcare Professionals | Podcast with Candice Chu

    Send us Fan Mail What does AI literacy actually look like for pathologists, researchers, and future clinicians? And how do you teach it in a way that is practical, not abstract? In this episode, I talk with Candice Chu, DVM, PhD about something I think a lot of people in digital pathology and computational pathology are feeling right now: AI is moving fast, but education is still catching up. Candice is a clinical pathologist, veterinarian, and educator building AI-focused teaching and research at Texas A&M. We worked together before on digital pathology and image analysis projects, so this conversation felt especially grounded. We talk about her AI literacy curriculum framework for veterinary education, why she decided to build it, and what it takes to teach AI in a way that is useful, ethical, and realistic. This episode is about understanding what AI tools are good for, where they can waste your time, and why hands-on experience matters. Candice explains why she sees AI as a set of tools, not a belief system. Try them. Learn them. Keep what improves your workflow. Drop what does not. We also talk about the difference between putting educational content online and building formal institutional teaching. That matters because social media can move quickly, but curriculum changes, research, and professional organizations shape longer-term adoption. Candice shares how her course started as a low-stakes elective, then grew into a more structured framework that combines education with publishable research. A big part of this conversation is the curriculum itself. We go through what students actually learn: AI fundamentals without heavy math, machine learning and image analysis, large language models, prompt engineering, chatbot building, ethics, literature research, and final projects where students evaluate real tools and workflows. I liked that the course does not stop at theory. It asks students to use tools, question them, and explain where they help and where they do not. We also get into something that matters far beyond veterinary medicine: professional responsibility. If AI is involved in a workflow, the clinician is still responsible. That includes fabricated citations, bad outputs, weak prompts, and the temptation to trust tools too quickly. Candice makes a strong case that AI education needs ethics, legal context, and interdisciplinary teaching built in from the start. If you are trying to think more clearly about AI in pathology, education, workflow design, or professional training, this episode gives you a concrete example of what responsible AI literacy can look like. Episode Highlights 00:00 – Why AI tools are just tools, and why trying them matters even if you later decide not to keep using them 00:33 – Who Candice Chu is and why her work on AI literacy in veterinary medicine is worth paying attention to 02:33 – Why going back to Texas A&M changed the scale of Candice’s AI research and teaching 07:53 – How the AI course was designed as a low-stakes elective first, and why that helped student engagement 11:16 – Where veterinary AI education stands now, and what professional organizations like ACVP are doing 13:08 – Why AI adoption in veterinary medicine is still slow, and what skepticism usually sounds like in practice 15:19 – Real examples of how Candice uses LLMs and computer vision in pathology, medical records, and research 19:58 – What is actually inside the 15-week AI literacy curriculum, from fundamentals to final projects 24:16 – Why ethics and legal responsibility are not optional in AI education 31:35 – Why no-code tools and vibe coding are entering the curriculum already 38:50 – The AI tools Candice is testing in her own workflow, including Claude, Codex, and Perplexity Resources mentioned Candice Chu’s AI literacy curriculum framework paper in Frontiers in Veterinary ScienceCandice’s earlier work on ChatGPT in veterinary medicineTexas A&M and the institutional setting where Candice is building AI research and teachingMr. Don Riddick and the AVMA AI working group, mentioned in the ethics and legal contextClaude, Codex, and Perplexity as AI tools Candice is actively testingDigital Pathology 101, mentioned in the conversation as a teaching resourceCandice’s online educational work on Instagram. Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  5. Jun 24

    242: Foundation Models in Pathology: Strong on Paper, Ready for Labs?

    Send us Fan Mail Are pathology foundation models actually ready for labs, or are they still stronger on paper than in practice? In this episode of DigiPath Digest #49, I unpack a timely review on pathology foundation models and ask the question that matters most to me: not just what these models can do, but what has to be true before they are genuinely useful in real pathology workflows. I walk through how pathology AI moved from narrow, task-specific models into the era of transformer-based foundation models. That shift matters because pathology is no longer only about looking at H&E in isolation. Today, pathologists are expected to integrate morphology, immunohistochemistry, molecular assays, genomics, and clinical context. That growing complexity is one reason foundation models are getting so much attention. In this discussion, I explain how transformers entered pathology, why image patches are treated like tokens, and how shared embeddings can support classification, regression, segmentation, and multimodal retrieval. I also go through the major pathology foundation models mentioned in the paper, including Virchow/Virchow2, Mayo Clinic Atlas, UNI, CONCH, H-Optimus, GigaPath, and TITAN, and why scale alone is not the full story. A big part of this episode is about the gap between benchmark performance and clinical readiness. I talk about the persistent limitations in training data diversity, the overuse of TCGA, and why public benchmarks can still miss what real pathology practice looks like. I also cover where foundation models still struggle, especially in cytopathology, hematopathology, and underrepresented disease areas, along with the real-world problems of artifacts, domain shift, concept drift, infrastructure burden, regulatory complexity, and workflow disruption. For me, one of the most important themes is this: AI in pathology should augment, not replace, pathologists. The future is not about handing diagnosis to a model. It is about building tools that support pathologists better, fit real workflows, and can be validated in ways that deserve trust. I also spend time on what comes next: explainable AI, counterfactual explanations, conversational interfaces, retrieval-augmented systems, multimodal fusion, and the need for deployment-centric validation rather than paper-only excitement. If you are trying to understand where pathology foundation models really stand today, this episode will help you separate the promise from the practical barriers. Episode Highlights 00:01 – Why I chose this paper, what is changing at Digital Pathology Place, and why foundation models are worth paying attention to now. 02:15 – The core questions: what pathology foundation models are, where they are, and how difficult they are to apply in pathology. 04:50 – Why pathology is becoming more cognitively demanding, and how multimodal complexity is driving interest in scalable AI. 07:02 – From narrow AI to transformers: how pathology moved beyond single-task CNN models. 10:16 – How transformers work in pathology: image patches as tokens, self-attention, embeddings, and downstream tasks. 14:16 – Why multimodality matters, and what kinds of data foundation models may eventually integrate. 15:27 – Timeline of key model developments, from “Attention Is All You Need” to gigapixel-scale pathology foundation models. 17:13 – The leading models and what scale really looks like: Virchow, Mayo Clinic Atlas, UNI, CONCH, H-Optimus, and GigaPath. 19:51 – Why dataset diversity matters more than sheer volume, and why TCGA is not enough. 23:17 – Where foundation models still struggle: cytopathology, hematopathology, rare disease, artifacts, scanner shifts, and pen marks. 28:06 – Explainability, counterfactual explanations, and why trust in pathology AI needs more than attention maps. 30:17 – The real deployment hurdles: regulation, infrastructure, workflow fit, and economics. 36:32 – Why AI should augment pathologists, not replace them, and which tedious tasks pathologists would gladly hand over. 38:36 – Retrieval-augmented and conversational AI in pathology: where interactive systems may actually help. 40:51 – Vision-language models and multimodal fusion with histology, radiology, genomics, and clinical notes. 42:16 – The path forward: deployment-centric design, prospective multi-site validation, and human-AI collaboration. 44:08 – Closing thoughts on AI literacy, community learning, and what needs to happen next. Resources Mentioned Main paper discussed: Pathology Foundation Models: Evolution, Current Landscape, Challenges and Opportunities from a Technical and Clinical Perspective https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050577Review article / journal landing page: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050577Benchmarks mentioned:PathoBench — discussed in the review paper; use the review link here for context until you want to swap in a canonical project page: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050577PathBench — public benchmark paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20202MEDFAIR — benchmark paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01725MEDFAIR code repository: https://github.com/ys-zong/MEDFAIRModels mentioned:Model overview in the review (Virchow/Virchow2, UNI, CONCH, H-Optimus, GigaPath, TITAN, Mayo Clinic Atlas): https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050577Virchow: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07778UNI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15474CONCH: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12914Mayo Clinic Atlas: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05409TITAN: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19666Dataset mentioned: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/Book mentioned: Digital Pathology 101: All You Need to Know to Start and Continue Your Digital Pathology Journey https://digitalpathologyplace.com/Platform: Digital Pathology Place https://digitalpathologyplace.com/Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  6. Jun 17

    241: AI-Powered Companion Diagnostics: The Future of Precision Medicine | Podcast with Doug Bowman, VP Precision Medicine at Indica Labs, Inc.

    Send us Fan Mail How far can pathologists take visual biomarker scoring before human vision becomes the bottleneck? In this episode, I talk with Doug Bowman. PhD, VP Precision Medicine at Indica Labs, about what happens when companion diagnostics move from traditional visual scoring into the era of AI-powered image analysis. Doug comes from a biomedical and electrical engineering background, with experience in microscopy, digital image analysis, pharma workflows, and now precision medicine at Indica Labs. That combination makes him a great person to talk to about how image analysis actually fits into real companion diagnostic development. We start with a very practical question: what is a companion diagnostic, and why is it becoming so important in precision medicine? Doug explains that companion diagnostics are developed alongside therapeutics to help identify which patients are most likely to benefit from a specific treatment, especially in more complex therapies like antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). We use HER2 as an example, and from there we get into the real challenge: once a biomarker cutoff matters clinically, visual estimation around that cutoff becomes much harder than many people want to admit. That is where this conversation gets especially useful for pathologists and digital pathology trailblazers. We talk about the limits of human vision, why low or ultra-low biomarker expression is difficult to score consistently, and how AI helps at multiple levels of the workflow: slide QC, tissue classification, cell segmentation, membrane and cytoplasmic measurement, and spatial analysis. Doug makes the case that AI is not only a convenience here. In some cases, it is the only realistic way to capture the kind of quantitative information modern therapies need. We also get into one of the more interesting examples from the episode: the Trop2 story, where a ratio of cytoplasmic to membrane expression appears to predict therapeutic efficacy better than looking at one compartment alone. That kind of compartment-level quantitation is exactly where computational pathology becomes more than a digital version of what the eye already does. It starts uncovering measurements and signatures the eye cannot reliably extract on its own. Another important part of the discussion is workflow and regulation. Doug walks through how AI-powered companion diagnostics are developed from preclinical work, to human feasibility studies, to RUO or clinical trial assays, and eventually toward analytical and clinical validation with regulatory engagement happening early. We also talk about the Indica Labs and Leica Biosystems partnership, and why end-to-end capability matters when you are trying to build something clinically deployable rather than just analytically interesting. What I liked about this conversation is that it stayed grounded. We did not talk about AI as magic. We talked about image analysis as a method, companion diagnostics as a workflow, and precision medicine as something that only works when the measurement is good enough to support real decisions. Episode Highlights 00:00 – Why AI matters in slide QC, tissue classification, and cell-level analysis before you even get to the biomarker score. 00:54 – Doug Bowman’s background in biomedical engineering, microscopy, and digital image analysis. 05:16 – What a companion diagnostic actually is, and why it is critical for targeted therapies and ADCs. 07:34 – Why visual biomarker scoring becomes unreliable around critical cutoffs, especially in low-expression cases. 10:09 – How AI expands the workflow: slide QC, tissue classification, and precise cell segmentation. 13:07 – Why pathologists remain central in AI workflows through validation, markup review, and model refinement. 16:31 – The Trop2 example: when cytoplasmic-to-membrane ratio tells you more than one compartment alone. 20:23 – The Indica Labs + Leica Biosystems partnership and why end-to-end workflow matters in companion diagnostics. 22:53 – What the development journey looks like from early algorithm work to RUO, validation, and regulatory interaction. 26:51 – Multiplexing, spatial analysis, and why more clinical value often comes with more deployment complexity. 33:29 – Why image analysis literacy matters, and how shared language between pathologists and scientists becomes essential. 40:13 – Where to learn more about Indica Labs and who to contact for collaboration. Resources mentioned Indica Labs Indica Labs contact – info@indicalab.comHALO software / HALO AI diagnostic image analysis – discussed in the context of companion diagnostic deployment and pharma services.Leica Biosystems GT450DX – referenced as an FDA-cleared slide scanner in the Indica-Leica partnership.Digital Pathology Association – mentioned as part of the broader educational ecosystem for digital pathology and image analysis.Digital Pathology Place / Digital Pathology Podcast – the platform hosting this conversation and related education around digital pathology and AI.Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  7. Jun 3

    240: Can AI Copilots Keep Up with Pathologists?

    Send us Fan Mail Can AI copilots really keep up with pathologists when the cases are new, the workflow is messy, and the benchmark is actually protected from leakage? In this episode of DigiPath Digest #48, I focus on one paper: DALPHIN: Benchmarking Digital Pathology AI Copilots Against Pathologists on an Open Multicentric Dataset. I chose this paper because I think the field needs more of this kind of work. Less hype. More evaluation. Less “look what AI can do.” More “how do we test it in a way that actually means something?”  In this session, I look at what makes DALPHIN important for pathologists, lab leaders, and digital pathology trailblazers trying to make sense of pathology AI right now. The paper benchmarks three models against human pathologists: two general-purpose models, Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-5, and one pathology-specific model, PathChat+. The dataset includes 1,236 images from 300 cases, covering 130 diagnoses, 14 pathology subspecialties, and cases from six countries. Human performance is benchmarked with 31 pathologists from 10 countries.  What I like about this paper is that it does not stop at top-line performance. It deals with the benchmarking problem itself. The authors built a sequestered, indirectly accessible ground truth so the evaluation data could not simply be scraped into model training. That matters because without that protection, benchmarking can become an illusion of genius rather than a real test of generalization.  The results are interesting and more nuanced than a simple win-or-lose story. PathChat+ reached expert-level performance in four of six tasks, Gemini in two of six, and GPT in one of six. That tells us something important already: pathology-specific training matters. But it also does not mean pathology is solved. In organ recognition, expert pathologists still outperformed all the models. In rare cancers, none of the models reached expert-level performance. And in ambiguous cases, the models still struggled with something human pathologists do all the time: expressing uncertainty.  I also spend time on one of the most practical parts of the paper: model behavior. Gemini tended to overcall. GPT tended to undercall. PathChat was more balanced. That matters in practice. A pathologist using a copilot needs to know the tool’s calibration bias before they can safely interpret what it is telling them. I also talk about anchoring bias in conversational interfaces, where early hallucinations can propagate through later answers if memory is not reset between questions. That is not just a technical curiosity. That is a workflow and safety issue.  Why should you listen? Because this episode is really about a bigger question: What kind of evidence should pathologists demand before AI copilots enter real workflows? If you want to understand validation, data leakage, rare-case performance, uncertainty, and why these tools should still be treated as co-pilots rather than autopilots, this is a useful paper to know.  Episode Highlights 01:20 – Why I chose the DALPHIN preprint and why benchmarking matters right now.  05:38 – What is in the DALPHIN dataset: 300 cases, 130 diagnoses, 14 subspecialties, 6 countries.  07:57 – Top-line performance: PathChat+ reaches expert-level performance in 4 of 6 tasks.  09:41 – The benchmarking trap of data leakage and why DALPHIN’s sequestered ground truth matters.  12:19 – Why real pathology diagnosis is not text-only and why macro + micro context matters.  15:26 – Tissue recognition, neoplasm detection, ambiguity, and conversational memory: how the testing was structured.  21:29 – The diagnostic personalities of the models: overcalling, undercalling, and balanced behavior.  24:36 – Rare cancers: where AI copilots still fall short of expert human performance.  28:00 – Why binary outputs are not enough when pathology often lives in uncertainty.  31:37 – Anchoring bias and conversational memory: how early hallucinations can keep propagating.  37:11 – Why these tools should be treated as co-pilots, not autopilots.  40:29 – Resources for beginners: Digital Pathology 101 and continued AI literacy.  Resources mentioned DALPHIN preprint: arXiv:2605.03544v1 DALPHIN evaluation platform: dalphin.grand-challenge.org PathChat+ pathology-specific AI model discussed in the benchmark. Digital Pathology 101 free eBook by Dr. Aleksandra Zuraw. Educational streams on tissue recognition and computer vision literacy mentioned in the session.Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

  8. May 28

    239: The Four Steps Pathology AI Demos Quietly Skip and Why They Matter

    Send us Fan Mail What happens when a pathology AI model misses the tissue before it even begins—and can better segmentation, education, and virtual staining close the gaps? In DigiPath Digest #47, I review four recent studies that expose both the promise and the weak points of AI-assisted digital pathology. We start with a step that sounds simple: detecting tissue on a whole slide image. Yet when that first step fails, the downstream algorithm may miss cancer entirely. From there, I look at a practical resource designed to improve communication between pathologists and computational scientists, a self-refining Segment Anything Model that reduces the burden of pixel-perfect nuclear annotations, and a virtual HER2 immunohistochemistry method generated from H&E images. The common lesson? Digital pathology AI is only as reliable as the workflow underneath it. Tissue processing, scanning, segmentation, annotation, model design, and clinical interpretation all matter. Every step needs validation. Discussion highlights 00:00 – Welcome to DigiPath Digest #47 and an overview of the four papers 02:31 – Why tissue detection is the foundation of pathology AI workflows 05:01 – A large prostate pathology study using 33,823 whole slide images for tissue detection and 70,000 images for downstream Gleason grading 06:28 – Classical thresholding missed tissue completely on 118 slides, compared with 24 slides using U-Net++ tissue detection 07:51 – How artifacts and uneven slide color can disrupt classical detection methods 09:59 – AI-based tissue detection reduced total failures by 79% but didn’t eliminate them 10:39 – Why validating only the final algorithm output can hide upstream sources of error 12:05 – Tissue detection choice produced clinically significant differences in final Gleason grade in 3.5% of malignant slides 13:33 – The communication gap between pathology and computer science—and why it still slows progress 15:29 – “Decoding Digital Histopathology” as an accessible guide for computational researchers entering pathology 18:03 – Digital Pathology 101, my free companion resource for anyone starting or continuing a digital pathology journey 20:18 – From collected tissue to glass slide, whole slide image, interpretation, and computational analysis 25:08 – The role of TCGA and the growth of digital pathology datasets across clinical, veterinary, preclinical, and research settings 27:14 – Why pixel-level nuclear annotation remains a bottleneck for deep learning 30:39 – Replacing detailed nuclear outlines with simple point prompts 31:23 – How the self-refining SAM framework uses sparse labels, contrastive learning, and a correction loop 33:25 – Do we really need to keep annotating the same structures for every new model? 37:49 – Generating virtual HER2 IHC from H&E with a score-aware, non-contrastive multitask model 39:53 – Study results: 83.01% accuracy for virtual IHC alone and 97.85% accuracy when H&E and virtual IHC were combined 40:56 – Where virtual IHC may fit as a complementary or triage tool—and why confirmatory testing still matters 44:06 – My perspective on trust, interpretation, and the difference between predicting IHC and predicting molecular alterations 46:17 – Final thoughts and an invitation to continue the discussion Resources mentioned “Impact of Tissue Detection on Diagnostic Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Prostate Digital Pathology” – Scientific Reports“Decoding Digital Histopathology: The Building Blocks for Computational Researchers” – PLOS Digital Health“Self-Refining Segment Anything Model for Nuclear Segmentation: A Contrastive Learning Approach to Label-Efficient Pathological Imaging” – Diagnostics“HER2 Score-Aware Virtual Immunohistochemistry via Non-Contrastive Multitask Translation” – DiagnosticsDigital Pathology 101: All You Need to Know to Start and Continue Your Digital Pathology JourneyEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative PathologyThe Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)If you work in pathology, computational science, image analysis, or AI development, this episode is a useful reminder to look beyond the headline performance metric. The errors that matter may begin much earlier in the workflow. Support the show Get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

Aleksandra Zuraw from Digital Pathology Place discusses digital pathology from the basic concepts to the newest developments, including image analysis and artificial intelligence. She reviews scientific literature and together with her guests discusses the current industry and research digital pathology trends.

You Might Also Like