Open Access

Factory-Grade GPU Diagnostic Automation in Digital Pathology and Computational Inference Systems: A Cross-Domain Theoretical and Applied Investigation

4 Department of Computer Engineering, Lund University, Sweden

Abstract

The contemporary convergence of high-performance graphics processing units and data-intensive biomedical analytics has generated a new epistemic space in which computational reliability, diagnostic automation, and clinical interpretation increasingly overlap. Digital pathology, genomic variant detection, and large-scale clinical image analysis now rely on massive parallelism delivered by modern GPUs, yet the operational reliability of such hardware has historically been treated as a secondary engineering concern rather than a foundational determinant of scientific and clinical validity. This article develops a comprehensive theoretical and applied framework for understanding factory-grade GPU diagnostic automation as a central enabling condition for trustworthy digital pathology and computational inference. Drawing on recent advances in automated GPU health verification and failure detection, particularly the factory-grade diagnostic architecture proposed for GeForce and data centre GPUs by Lulla, Chandra, and Ranjan (2025), the study argues that hardware-level reliability testing must be understood as an epistemological pillar of modern digital diagnostics rather than a peripheral technical service.

The article integrates three major literatures that are rarely placed in sustained dialogue: formal methods and satisfiability theory, GPU-based high-performance computing, and the rapidly expanding field of digital pathology. The historical trajectory of automated reasoning, from early theorem proving systems to modern incremental satisfiability and model checking, provides a conceptual lens for interpreting GPU diagnostics as a form of hardware-level verification analogous to logical consistency checking in software systems (Davis et al., 1962; Een and Sorensson, 2003; Emerson and Halpern, 1983). At the same time, performance-oriented GPU studies and biomedical computing frameworks demonstrate that even minor undetected hardware faults can propagate through massively parallel workloads to produce clinically misleading outputs in digital pathology, genomic epidemiology, and artificial intelligence-based diagnostics (Fang et al., 2011; Carpi et al., 2022; Waqas et al., 2023). By synthesizing these bodies of work, this article establishes that factory-grade GPU diagnostic automation is not only a technical safeguard but also a methodological prerequisite for reproducible, safe, and ethically defensible biomedical inference.

Methodologically, the study employs a theory-driven integrative review and conceptual modeling approach. Instead of empirical benchmarking, it constructs an interpretive framework that maps GPU diagnostic stages to stages of formal verification and to phases of digital pathology workflows. The results demonstrate that systematic, automated GPU diagnostics reduce epistemic risk by stabilizing computational substrates upon which clinical AI and digital microscopy operate. The discussion elaborates the implications for regulatory science, laboratory accreditation, and future GPU-enabled clinical platforms, arguing that the absence of factory-grade diagnostic automation constitutes an unrecognized form of clinical risk. The article concludes that the integration of automated GPU diagnostics into biomedical computing pipelines is a necessary condition for the future of precision medicine, particularly as generative and foundation models increasingly mediate diagnostic decision-making.

Keywords

References

📄 Amini K, Vakili Ogharood M, Davari M, Ershadifard S, Asadi H. A Case of A Fractured Fragment of Tracheostomy Tube Entering the Left Bronchus: A Case Report. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2021;23(1):393–7. https://doi.org/10.22088/jbums.23.1.393
📄 Davis M, Logemann G, Loveland DW. A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM. 1962;5(7):394–397. https://doi.org/10.1145/368273.368557
📄 Digital Pathology Market USD 2.51 Bn at 8.24% CAGR by 2034. Available from: https://www.towardshealthcare.com/insights/digital-pathology-market-sizing. Accessed 2 June 2025
📄 Lulla K, Chandra R, Ranjan K. Factory grade diagnostic automation for GeForce and data centre GPUs. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Information Technology. 2025;5(3):537–544. https://doi.org/10.52088/ijesty.v5i3.1089
📄 Bahoush G, Vafapour M. A case report of severe venoocclusive disease following autologous stem cell transplantation successfully treated with Defibrotide. Eur J Transl Myol. 2020;30(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/EJTM.2020.9161
📄 Een N, Biere A. Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination. In Proc. of SAT. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/11499107_5
📄 Bera K, Schalper KA, Rimm DL, Velcheti V, Madabhushi A. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(11):703. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0252-y
📄 Carpi G, Gorenstein L, Harkins TT, Samadi M, Vats P. A GPU accelerated compute framework for pathogen genomic variant identification to aid genomic epidemiology of infectious disease. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23(5):bbac314. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac314
📄 Emerson EA, Halpern JY. Sometimes and Not Never Revisited On Branching Versus Linear Time. In Proc. of POPL. 1983. https://doi.org/10.1145/567067.567081
📄 Hanna MG, Reuter VE, Samboy J, England C, Corsale L, Fine SW. Implementation of digital pathology offers clinical and operational increase in efficiency and cost savings. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(12):1545–1555. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2018-0514-OA
📄 Shafi S, Parwani AV. Artificial intelligence in diagnostic pathology. Diagn Pathol. 2023;18(1):109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-023-01375-z
📄 Franco J, Martin J. A History of Satisfiability. In Handbook of Satisfiability. 2009. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-3
📄 Baidoshvili A, Bucur A, van Leeuwen J, van der Laak J, Kluin P, van Diest PJ. Evaluating the benefits of digital pathology implementation. Histopathology. 2018;73(5):784–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13691
📄 Li W, Mikailov M, Chen W. Scaling the Inference of Digital Pathology Deep Learning Models Using CPU Based High Performance Computing. IEEE Trans Artif Intell. 2023;4(6):1691–1704
📄 Waqas A, Bui MM, Glassy EF, El Naqa I, Borkowski P, Borkowski AA. Revolutionizing Digital Pathology With the Power of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Foundation Models. Lab Investig. 2023;103(11):100255
📄 Grobholz R, Janowczyk A, Zlobec I. Transforming pathology into digital pathology highway to hell or stairway to heaven. Diagnostic Histopathol. 2025
📄 Geisler S, Haxthausen AE. Stepwise development and model checking of a distributed interlocking system using RAISE. Formal Aspects of Computing. 2021;33(1):87–125
📄 Ahuja S, Zaheer S. Advancements in pathology Digital transformation precision medicine and beyond. J Pathol Inform. 2025;16:100408
📄 Digital and Computational Pathology Market Report Second Edition 2024 to 2029. Available from: https://www.decibio.com/product/digital-pathology-market-report. Accessed 2 June 2025.

Similar Articles

11-20 of 23

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.