Deep learning-based automated image analysis (DL-AIA) has been shown to outperform trained pathologists in tasks related to feature quantification. Related to these capacities the use of DL-AIA tools is currently extending from proof-of-principle studies to routine applications such as patient samples (diagnostic pathology), regulatory safety assessment (toxicologic pathology), and recurrent research tasks. To ensure that DL-AIA applications are safe and reliable, it is critical to conduct a thorough and objective generalization performance assessment (i.e., the ability of the algorithm to accurately predict patterns of interest) and possibly evaluate model robustness (i.e., the algorithm's capacity to maintain predictive accuracy on images from different sources). In this article, we review the practices for performance assessment in veterinary pathology publications by which two approaches were identified: 1) Exclusive visual performance control (i.e. eyeballing of algorithmic predictions) plus validation of the models application utilizing secondary performance indices, and 2) Statistical performance control (alongside the other methods), which requires a dataset creation and separation of an hold-out test set prior to model training. This article compares the strengths and weaknesses of statistical and visual performance control methods. Furthermore, we discuss relevant considerations for rigorous statistical performance evaluation including metric selection, test dataset image composition, ground truth label quality, resampling methods such as bootstrapping, statistical comparison of multiple models, and evaluation of model stability. It is our conclusion that visual and statistical evaluation have complementary strength and a combination of both provides the greatest insight into the DL model's performance and sources of error.