As digital pathology continues to reshape diagnostic workflows, the choice of display system is a critical factor in ensuring diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. A recent study by IQVIA Laboratories, ADC Therapeutics and Barco, ‘Comparison of digital displays for efficient diagnosis and accuracy’, compared the performance of three types of displays – medical-grade, professional-grade, and consumer-grade. The results showed that the medical‑grade display performed significantly better.

Digital transformation and the importance of the monitor

Digital pathology enables pathologists to interpret whole slide images on digital displays, supporting remote diagnostics and integration with computational tools. However, the reliability of these workflows depends not only on the quality of scanners and software, but also on the display used for image review.

The study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and user experience of a medical-grade display (the Barco MDPC-8127), a professional-grade display, and a consumer-grade display, using 19 H&E and 19 immunohistochemistry (IHC) slides assessed by two board-certified pathologists.

Key findings: Medical-grade displays deliver superior results

While all displays performed reasonably well, only the medical-grade display achieved perfect concordance (100%) with conventional microscopy for H&E (the most common stains used) slides while the professional- and consumer-grade displays showed lower concordance (85–95%).

In contrast, the consumer-grade display was perceived as inferior, particularly in color reproduction and the visibility of cellular details.

What makes medical-grade displays different?

Features such as real-time luminance and color calibration and stabilization, high resolution, and a wide color gamut contribute to consistent image quality over time. These attributes are especially important for visualizing subtle histopathological details, which can be critical in challenging or borderline cases.

While professional- and consumer-grade displays may offer high initial performance, they often lack the calibration and quality assurance mechanisms required for sustained diagnostic reliability throughout the display lifetime.

As digital pathology becomes more integrated with remote workflows, establishing minimum performance standards for displays will be essential for patient safety and clinical confidence.

Reference

Monika Lamba Saini, Amanda Hemmerich, Anna Banach-Ovens, Hannah Manssens, Robbie Dougan, Tom Kimpe, John D. Cochran, ‘Comparison of digital displays for efficient diagnosis and accuracy‘, Journal of Pathology Informatics, Volume 20, 2026.