Histopathology image classification: Highlighting the gap between manual analysis and AI automation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

I thought about adding the following sections - comments?

Journals

Subsystems (Sections, Divisions, Special Groups)

Presidents?

Something about the HPC?

Any other ideas?

Hi there, I had just read this article myself, and as with you, thought that something better be added on the Society sub-systems. This could clarify how "Divisions" and "Sections" are to be distinguished. ACEO 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think more precision could be used to enter the number of members of the BPS, including the number of members who are Chartered Psychologists. Does any one have data on these?ACEO 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that a lot of people who read this will themselves be in the British Psychological Society. They may like to know that they can now add themselves to the category of "Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society" (I have for some time been the sole member of this category!) ACEO 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be quite honest and state that, despite being based in the United Kingdom, I find the Wikipedia article on the American Psychological Association better than this one. Does any one have any comments? I certainly think it is better presented. ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very concerned to see this article making the totally unsourced and dubious claim that members of the BPS can write "MBPS" after their names. To do so would actually be considered a serious offense by the BPS, as it would give the misleading impression that one needed more than a Psychology degree to gain graduate status of the BPS. I have now inserted more accurate information, on how chartered psychologists can write "C. Psychol." after their names. ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion going on at UCFD, that could use some input from those knowledgeable about this society. Whether you think the category is useful or not, I encourage you to contribute to the conversation. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how come "MBPS" redirects here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.39 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread before last, above. MBPS = Member of the British Psychological Society. But if there are other, equally notable, meanings for the abbreviation, then the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation list. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Banister is the current president from 2012 to 2013; this is not clarified in the article, so this article now needs an update. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I just made the update myself! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding us. I have also corrected it in the opening section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the entry for the CEPS has been merged with the main BPS entry, the main article looks seriously unbalanced. The BPS has many member networks of which the CEPS is a very minor one in terms of membership. That it is the only one given any treatment other than a mere mention looks most odd, and could skew readers' understanding of the work of the Society. Either the section on the CEPS needs to be deleted or the main article ought to be populated with corresponding information on all the other member networks. Lissagriffin (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British Journal of Psychology currently re-directs to this article. Surely, of all the BPS journals, this one deserves its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's . Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How kind. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (including you!). For more on this see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Your first article. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I really am impressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to discuss this section, included by longstanding consensus, instead of just edit warring over it inclusion?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of the current special groups as listed on the BPS website including coaching psychology. I propose to add a line or two about the scope of each group or network. Notgain (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Added dot point for the two journals Coaching Psychology and International Coaching Review under the groups section. Notgain (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review, has made a substantial impact since published In April - not least that puberty blockers in the UK are now prohibited under the NHS or in private practise, outside of clinical research.

It has also prompted bodies such as UKCP to revise their guidelines for working therapeutically with individuals who present with gender dysphoria. Cass_Review#Response_from_other_health_bodies_in_the_United_Kingdom.

So I created a new section in the BPS page to cover their response to Cass, and criticism of it which has emerged.

Those editors with a closer familiarity with the BPS may be able to be find further information on both sides, to flesh this out.Peckedagain (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peckedagain, I've made a few copy edits. Please revert or edit further if you see fit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Martinevans123, those edits are fine - are 2nd pair of eyes is always good. I may not have made all the same tweaks, but there's no reason your style isn't better than mine. Peckedagain (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing on behalf of the BPS with some clarifications.

In relation to this paragraph:

'In June 2024 the BPS issued an update to their "Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity". Notably, two members of the six-person of the original 2019 panel resigned shortly before it was published. The new revision has been criticised for not referring to the Cass Review at all, and for being silent on key parts of the review, including the recommendation to cater for detransitioning.'

We would like to clarify that The BPS did not reference the Cass Review in our updated Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity because these relate to adults, not children and young people. The BPS made this point clear on our website:

‘The purpose of this interim review was to assess the content in the guidance and update where necessary and appropriate. We know that the area of U18s and gender incongruence is a challenging and often highly politically charged one, which is why we have begun recruitment for the Task and Finish Group. We estimate this work will take approximately 18 months.’

The suggestion that two members of the panel resigned shortly before publication is also inaccurate.

In relation to this paragraph:

'In contrast to the BPS, a professional body for professionals in a related field, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, published in November 2023 revised guidelines that referred specifically to the Cass Review's recommendations, and supported the validity of exploratory therapy, rather than 'affirmative therapy', which includes medicalised interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or reassignment surgery.'

This implies that the BPS does not support exploratory therapy, this is incorrect. Our guidance states:

'It is acceptable to explore, compassionately challenge, and hold uncertainty with clients while working within these guidelines; and thus, not be undertaking conversion therapy as long as regardless of a psychologist’s personal beliefs or worldview, their practice does not consider a GSRD outcome to be less acceptable in principle than a heterosexual, monogamous, or cisgender one.'

Finally, the BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity are not clinical guidelines. Instead, they are broad principles and it would be wholly inappropriate for the guidelines to cover areas such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or reassignment surgery. Josh Warwick (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for those points of clarification, Josh Warwick. As a registered user, you are perfectly entitled to make whatever corrections to the article that you see fit. Alternatively you could make a request here for a change from the current text to some corrected text. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin - this is our suggested corrected text:

The Cass Review was published in April 2024, as an independent review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, having been commissioned in 2020 by NHS England and NHS Improvement. It found, regarding medical interventions, a "lack of high-quality evidence", and it made a large number of recommendations, including those in the psychological area relevant to the BPS, including social transition, and conflicting clinical views between 'affirming care' versus 'exploratory care'.

In June 2024 the BPS issued an update to their "Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity". An open letter criticising the BPS for not referring to the Cass Review in these guidelines was sent on 14 August to Professor Tony Lavender, Chair of the BPS Practice Board, by Pat Harvey, David Pilgrim and Peter Harvey, all BPS members and clinical psychologists. They state that the revised BPS guidelines: "represent an active barrier to much needed change in philosophy and practice for psychologists working in re-formed Gender Services in the immediate future".

However, the BPS has clarified that its updated guidelines did not refer to the Cass Review because these relate to adults, not children and young people. The BPS made this point on its website on our website:

‘The purpose of this interim review was to assess the content in the guidance and update where necessary and appropriate. We know that the area of U18s and gender incongruence is a challenging and often highly politically charged one, which is why we have begun recruitment for the Task and Finish Group. We estimate this work will take approximately 18 months.’ Josh Warwick (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Josh. Obviously "we" will need to be changed to "they" or "it". But can all four paragraphs be sourced by that one external link, or are more sources required? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin. How is this?

The Cass Review was published in April 2024, as an independent review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, having been commissioned in 2020 by NHS England and NHS Improvement. It found, regarding medical interventions, a "lack of high-quality evidence", and it made a large number of recommendations, including those in the psychological area relevant to the BPS, including social transition, and conflicting clinical views between 'affirming care' versus 'exploratory care'.

In June 2024 the BPS issued an update to their "Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity". An open letter criticising the BPS for not referring to the Cass Review in these guidelines was sent on 14 August to Professor Tony Lavender, Chair of the BPS Practice Board, by Pat Harvey, David Pilgrim and Peter Harvey, all BPS members and clinical psychologists. They state that the revised BPS guidelines: "represent an active barrier to much needed change in philosophy and practice for psychologists working in re-formed Gender Services in the immediate future".

However, the BPS has clarified that its updated guidelines did not refer to the Cass Review because these relate to adults, not children and young people. The BPS made this point on its website:

"The purpose of this interim review was to assess the content in the guidance and update where necessary and appropriate. We know that the area of U18s and gender incongruence is a challenging and often highly politically charged one, which is why we have begun recruitment for the Task and Finish Group. We estimate this work will take approximately 18 months." Josh Warwick (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the current text with the above. But any editor is at liberty to change or add to it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help - and understood! Josh Warwick (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]