Does pathology need a microscope anymore?

For generations, pathology has been practiced at the microscope. Many of us were trained to spend long hours at the bench, reviewing glass slides, calling colleagues over for a second look, and debating subtle findings face-to-face. The microscope has not just been a tool, but a shared focal point for collaboration, mentorship, and scientific rigor.

Today, however, that model is beginning to change. Advances in digital pathology are prompting an uncomfortable but important question: can a discipline so deeply rooted in the microscope truly move into a remote and digital world; and if so, what do we gain and what do we risk losing?

High‑resolution whole‑slide imaging, cloud-based platforms, and increasingly sophisticated digital viewers now allow pathologists to review tissue sections remotely with a level of detail that would have seemed impossible only a few years ago. These tools open the door to distributed teams, where experts can work together across cities, countries, or even continents; but they also challenge long-standing assumptions about how pathology “should” be practiced.

In our recent article in Toxicologic Pathology, we shared our experience of transitioning a toxicologic pathology team to a fully digital workflow. Our goal was not simply to adopt new technology for its own sake. Instead, we wanted to understand whether remote work could be implemented in a way that preserved scientific quality, supported collaboration, and sustained team cohesion and well‑being.

The potential advantages of digital pathology are clear, but the transition is far from straightforward.

Perhaps the most critical consideration is scientific quality and regulatory compliance. Toxicologic pathology plays a central role in preclinical safety assessment, often within highly regulated environments such as GLP studies. Any digital workflow must demonstrate the same reliability, traceability, and robustness as traditional microscopy. This requires careful validation of scanning systems, secure and auditable data management, and well-defined quality assurance processes. Without these foundations, “going digital” simply isn’t credible.

Collaboration is another major concern. Pathology has always been a team sport. Difficult diagnoses are rarely made in isolation, and peer review is fundamental to quality. In a distributed environment, these interactions don’t happen spontaneously: they have to be deliberately designed. In our experience, digital slide platforms combined with screen sharing and virtual review sessions can recreate, and sometimes even enhance these scientific exchanges. Reviewing the same slide simultaneously while connecting from different countries makes expert input more accessible than ever, if the tools are used thoughtfully.

Training and mentorship present additional challenges. Traditionally, pathology education relied heavily on in‑person apprenticeship at multihead microscopes, where trainees learned not only what to diagnose, but how to think. In a digital environment, this model needs to evolve. Digital slide archives, annotated teaching cases, and virtual sessions offer powerful alternatives, but they require structure and intention..

There are also practical and technical realities to confront. Whole‑slide images are enormous files, and managing them demands reliable networks, robust storage solutions, and seamless access for users working remotely. Without the right infrastructure, even the best digital pathology platforms can become cumbersome and frustrating in daily practice.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the human factor. Many pathologists have spent years, if not decades, honing their skills at the microscope. Moving to a screen can feel unfamiliar, or even unsettling. Successful digital transformation therefore depends as much on change management as on technology: building confidence in digital systems, providing hands-on training, and allowing individuals time to adapt at their own pace.

Despite these challenges, our experience shows that remote, digital toxicologic pathology is both feasible and sustainable. When implemented carefully, digital workflows can increase flexibility, widen access to expertise, and support effective collaboration across geographic boundaries.

More broadly, this shift reflects changes happening across the scientific landscape. Digital technologies are reshaping how research is conducted, how teams interact, and how expertise is shared. Hybrid and remote work models are no longer experimental—they are becoming part of everyday scientific practice.

Ultimately, digital transformation in toxicologic pathology is not about replacing the microscope with a monitor. It is about rethinking how we work, how we collaborate, and how we uphold scientific rigor in an increasingly connected world.

Read the article

Article Details
Toxicologic Pathology Forum*: Opinion on Remote Digital Toxicologic Pathology in Practice—Lessons From a Digital Team and Approach to Scientific Quality, Flexibility, and Well-Being
Frederic Gervais, et al.
First published: February 18, 2026
DOI: 10.1177/01926233261416818
Toxicologic Pathology