What first drew you to pathology – and what continues to inspire you today?
Pathology has always been the most compelling field in medicine for me. It brings together science and diagnostic problem-solving, offering a unique perspective on disease that continues to inspire me.
The specialty sits at the intersection of medicine, biology, and increasingly, technology. What continues to draw me in is the intellectual challenge – integrating clinical information, morphology, and sometimes molecular data to reach a diagnosis. A single accurate diagnosis can influence treatment decisions, prognosis, and patient outcomes. For many pathologists, the work feels like solving a complex puzzle for patients we may never meet.
Today, advances such as digital pathology, AI, and expanded diagnostic testing are creating new opportunities for innovation and translational research. For those working in informatics, this is an opportunity to help shape the future of medicine through emerging technologies.
What lessons have you learned about balancing innovation with the day-to-day realities of patient-centered diagnostics?
Innovation in pathology needs to fit clinical practice – not the other way around. Even the most advanced AI tool has limited value if it slows workflows, increases cognitive burden, or disrupts turnaround times. If a technology adds friction, it is unlikely to be adopted, regardless of its capabilities. Digital tools must integrate smoothly into existing systems, which requires strong interoperability – something that remains a challenge in practice.
Safety and validation are also essential. Small pilot studies can help identify issues before wider implementation. Real-world use often reveals challenges not seen during development, such as staining variation, scanner differences, workflow inconsistencies, or user adaptations. AI tools may also introduce new risks, including dataset bias, algorithm drift, and sensitivity to artifacts. Careful validation and monitoring are therefore critical.
Ultimately, technology should support, not replace, the role of the pathologist. Adoption depends not only on the tool itself, but also on training, change management, and a culture that views technology as an extension of patient care. Behind every dataset or digital slide is a patient, and that perspective should guide how new tools are developed and used.
What have been some of your career highlights so far?
A key milestone has been my leadership roles at major institutions. I currently serve as Chair of the Department of Pathology and Maud L. Menten Professor at the University of Pittsburgh/UPMC, and previously was Director of Anatomic Pathology at the University of Michigan.
I have also held leadership positions in several professional organizations, including serving as president of the Association for Pathology Informatics (API), Digital Pathology Association (DPA), and American Society of Cytopathology (ASC), and I am currently president-elect of Association of Directors of Anatomic and Subspecialty Pathology (ADASP).
I have been fortunate to build a career at the intersection of pathology, informatics, and digital transformation. I co-founded the Journal of Pathology Informatics and helped develop the PIER (Pathology Informatics Essentials for Residents) curriculum, which supports training in this area. My academic contributions include around 700 peer-reviewed publications, 17 textbooks, 126 book chapters, and more than 480 invited presentations. I have also received several awards, including the CAP President’s Honor Award, API Distinguished Service Award, API Lifetime Achievement Award, the 2026 Papanicolaou Award, and the CAP Pathology Advancement Award.
How has your role evolved alongside the rapid growth in digital technologies?
Throughout my career, I have aimed to translate innovation into practice. As an early adopter of digital pathology, I contributed to its progression from a research concept to a clinical tool. I helped develop validation guidelines for whole-slide imaging, which supported safe and broader adoption, and led implementation efforts in large academic systems to demonstrate feasibility at scale.
More recently, my work has focused on integrating AI into pathology in a responsible and practical way – through research, education, and collaboration across clinical, technical, and regulatory domains. Overall, my career has followed – and contributed to – the evolution of digital pathology, from early adoption to clinical implementation and now to governance and AI integration.
The below table highlights my work in digital pathology from idea and practice through to governance – mirroring and reflecting the shape of the field.
What advice would you offer to the next generation of pathologists and clinical leaders?
Advances in molecular testing, digital pathology, and AI are expanding what can be detected and understood. With this in mind, the pathologist of tomorrow will need to be a lifelong learner, comfortable with technology, ethically grounded, and collaborative. Learning does not stop after training – it is a career-long commitment. Developing skills in digital and computational pathology, and becoming familiar with AI tools early, will be important as these technologies become more integrated into practice.
Technology should always be used to support, not replace, clinical judgment. Understanding both the strengths and limitations of new tools, especially AI, is essential to maintaining diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. Strong leadership will involve building trust, supporting teams, and balancing innovation with safety, while collaboration will continue to be key to solving complex problems.
Finally, maintaining high ethical standards – particularly when working with patient data and AI – and sharing knowledge with colleagues will help advance the field. In doing so, the next generation can build on the strengths of pathology while helping shape its future.
Newsletters
Receive the latest pathologist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
