Agentic systems in computational pathology: architectures, evidence, and translational challenges

Abstract

Digital pathology supports whole-slide imaging, remote review, and computational analysis. Most pathology AI systems, however, remain restricted to predefined tasks. Agentic architectures coordinate perception models, language-based reasoning, external tools, and feedback-dependent actions, but their clinical evidence is derived mainly from retrospective benchmarks and research prototypes. We review agentic systems in computational pathology using an operational taxonomy based on dynamic control flow, inference-time tool selection, and knowledge integration. We assess architectures, enabling technologies, and applications in diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic support. Reported gains are difficult to attribute to agentic organization because studies differ in backbones, training data, and inference budgets. We therefore emphasize validation scope, computational cost, workflow integration, hallucination and security risks, regulatory requirements, patient preferences, and the conditions under which specialist non-agentic models remain preferable. Agentic architectures have established technical feasibility, but not clinical benefit. Translation should prioritize verifiable tasks, matched comparisons, prospective and external validation, lifecycle governance, and interfaces that preserve pathologist oversight.