The progression of panels

Our plain-English summary of The progression of panels, by M. Greenberg (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1991).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1991;19(1):1-2
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This two-page editorial, by a single author at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, introduced an article by Dr. McCaughey in the same journal issue about serving on mesothelioma pathology panels. It did not describe a study of patients or workers. Asbestos and fiber types were not named. The author discussed expert panels that classify tumor pathology and read chest X-rays for epidemiological research, describing them as the epidemiologists' answer where recognition involves a significant subjective element. The author argued that how panels are set up and operated, and how their data are handled, had not been sufficiently investigated. The author noted that individual readers and whole panels can vary over time, and that changing standards can disrupt long-term studies unless old readings are recalibrated. The author mentioned that the U.S.-Canadian panel had greater than 75% agreement on 70% of referred material, without giving a source or further detail. The author concluded that much remains to be done and that there is a strong case for involving other disciplines, such as the physiological and psychological sciences, in studying panel reading.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: editorial (opinion piece introducing another article in the same issue); describes no study of its own
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial discusses expert panels that classify pathology material (including mesothelioma) and read chest X-rays for epidemiological purposes.
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the setting up and operation of panels, and the handling of their data, had not been sufficiently investigated or publicly discussed.
  • The author stated that changing panel standards disrupt longitudinal studies unless old readings are recalibrated from selected sample re-readings.
  • The author stated, without giving a source, that the U.S.-Canadian panel had greater than 75% agreement on 70% of referred material. The editorial does not describe how this figure was obtained.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that much remains to be done in panel reading and that there is a strong case for involving other disciplines, such as the physiological and psychological sciences, in investigating the process.

Related studies

• Functions of mesothelioma panels — M. Kannerstein, J. Churg, et al. (1979)
• How to assess the best immunohistochemical panel in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a pathology lab — M. Mlika, O. Lamzibri, et al. (2018)
• Assessing Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Solid Tumors: A Practical Review for Pathologists and Proposal for a Standardized Method from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group: Part 2: TILs in Melanoma, Gastrointestinal Tract Carcinomas, Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma and Mesothelioma, Endometrial and Ovarian Carcinomas, Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck, Genitourinary Carcinomas, and Primary Brain Tumors — S. Hendry, R. Salgado, et al. (2017)
• Peritoneal tumours in asbestosis — J.B. Enticknap, W.J. Smither (1964)
• Diffuse mesothelioma of the pleura and asbestos — P.C. Elmes, W.T. McCaughey, et al. (1965)
• The pathology of mesotheliomata and an analysis of their association with asbestos exposure — D.O. Hourihane (1964)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.