PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Currently, there is a paucity of guidelines relating to displays used for digital pathology making procurement decisions, and optimal display configuration, challenging.Experience suggests pathologists have personal preferences for brightness when using a conventional microscope which we hypothesized could be used as a predictor for display setup.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an online survey across six NHS hospitals, totalling 108 practicing pathologists, to capture brightness adjustment habits on both microscopes and displays.A convenience subsample of respondents was then invited to take part in a practical task to determine microscope brightness and display luminance preferences in the normal working environment. A novel adaptation for a lightmeter was developed to directly measure the light output from the microscope eyepiece.
UNASSIGNED: The survey (response rate 59% n=64) indicates 81% of respondents adjust the brightness on their microscope. In comparison, only 11% report adjusting their digital display. Display adjustments were more likely to be for visual comfort and ambient light compensation rather than for tissue factors, common for microscope adjustments. Part of this discrepancy relates to lack of knowledge of how to adjust displays and lack of guidance on whether this is safe; But, 66% felt that the ability to adjust the light on the display was important.Twenty consultants took part in the practical brightness assessment. Light preferences on the microscope showed no correlation with display preferences, except where a pathologist has a markedly brighter microscope light preference. All of the preferences in this cohort were for a display luminance of <500 cd/m2, with 90% preferring 350 cd/m2 or less. There was no correlation between these preferences and the ambient lighting in the room.
UNASSIGNED: We conclude that microscope preferences can only be used to predict display luminance requirements where the microscope is being used at very high brightness levels. A display capable of a brightness of 500 cd/m2 should be suitable for almost all pathologists with 300 cd/m2 suitable for the majority. Although display luminance is not frequently changed by users, the ability to do so was felt to be important by the majority of respondents.Further work needs to be undertaken to establish the relationship between diagnostic performance, luminance preferences, and ambient lighting levels.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an online survey across six NHS hospitals, totalling 108 practicing pathologists, to capture brightness adjustment habits on both microscopes and displays.A convenience subsample of respondents was then invited to take part in a practical task to determine microscope brightness and display luminance preferences in the normal working environment. A novel adaptation for a lightmeter was developed to directly measure the light output from the microscope eyepiece.
UNASSIGNED: The survey (response rate 59% n=64) indicates 81% of respondents adjust the brightness on their microscope. In comparison, only 11% report adjusting their digital display. Display adjustments were more likely to be for visual comfort and ambient light compensation rather than for tissue factors, common for microscope adjustments. Part of this discrepancy relates to lack of knowledge of how to adjust displays and lack of guidance on whether this is safe; But, 66% felt that the ability to adjust the light on the display was important.Twenty consultants took part in the practical brightness assessment. Light preferences on the microscope showed no correlation with display preferences, except where a pathologist has a markedly brighter microscope light preference. All of the preferences in this cohort were for a display luminance of <500 cd/m2, with 90% preferring 350 cd/m2 or less. There was no correlation between these preferences and the ambient lighting in the room.
UNASSIGNED: We conclude that microscope preferences can only be used to predict display luminance requirements where the microscope is being used at very high brightness levels. A display capable of a brightness of 500 cd/m2 should be suitable for almost all pathologists with 300 cd/m2 suitable for the majority. Although display luminance is not frequently changed by users, the ability to do so was felt to be important by the majority of respondents.Further work needs to be undertaken to establish the relationship between diagnostic performance, luminance preferences, and ambient lighting levels.
摘要：
■目前，关于用于数字病理学做出采购决策的显示器的指南很少，和最佳的显示配置，具有挑战性。经验表明，病理学家在使用常规显微镜时对亮度有个人偏好，我们假设该显微镜可以用作显示设置的预测指标。
■我们在六家NHS医院进行了一项在线调查，共有108名执业病理学家，捕捉显微镜和显示器的亮度调节习惯。然后邀请受访者的便利子样本参加实际任务，以确定正常工作环境中的显微镜亮度和显示亮度偏好。开发了一种用于测光计的新颖适配，以直接测量显微镜目镜的光输出。
■调查（响应率59％n=64）表明81％的受访者在显微镜上调整亮度。相比之下,只有11%的人报告调整他们的数字显示。显示调整更可能是为了视觉舒适度和环境光补偿，而不是组织因素。常见的显微镜调整。这种差异的部分原因是缺乏对如何调整显示器的了解，以及缺乏对这是否安全的指导；但是，66％的人认为调整显示器上的光线的能力很重要。二十名顾问参加了实际亮度评估。显微镜上的光线偏好与显示偏好没有相关性，除了病理学家有一个明显明亮的显微镜光线偏好。该组中的所有偏好都是<500cd/m2的显示器亮度,其中90%偏好350cd/m2或更小。这些偏好与房间中的环境照明之间没有相关性。
■我们得出的结论是，显微镜的偏好只能用于预测在非常高的亮度水平下使用显微镜的显示器亮度要求。具有500cd/m2亮度的显示器应该适合于几乎所有病理学家,并且300cd/m2适合于大多数人。尽管用户不经常改变显示器亮度,大多数受访者认为这样做的能力很重要。需要开展进一步的工作来建立诊断性能之间的关系，亮度首选项，和环境照明水平。
■我们在六家NHS医院进行了一项在线调查，共有108名执业病理学家，捕捉显微镜和显示器的亮度调节习惯。然后邀请受访者的便利子样本参加实际任务，以确定正常工作环境中的显微镜亮度和显示亮度偏好。开发了一种用于测光计的新颖适配，以直接测量显微镜目镜的光输出。
■调查（响应率59％n=64）表明81％的受访者在显微镜上调整亮度。相比之下,只有11%的人报告调整他们的数字显示。显示调整更可能是为了视觉舒适度和环境光补偿，而不是组织因素。常见的显微镜调整。这种差异的部分原因是缺乏对如何调整显示器的了解，以及缺乏对这是否安全的指导；但是，66％的人认为调整显示器上的光线的能力很重要。二十名顾问参加了实际亮度评估。显微镜上的光线偏好与显示偏好没有相关性，除了病理学家有一个明显明亮的显微镜光线偏好。该组中的所有偏好都是<500cd/m2的显示器亮度,其中90%偏好350cd/m2或更小。这些偏好与房间中的环境照明之间没有相关性。
■我们得出的结论是，显微镜的偏好只能用于预测在非常高的亮度水平下使用显微镜的显示器亮度要求。具有500cd/m2亮度的显示器应该适合于几乎所有病理学家,并且300cd/m2适合于大多数人。尽管用户不经常改变显示器亮度,大多数受访者认为这样做的能力很重要。需要开展进一步的工作来建立诊断性能之间的关系，亮度首选项，和环境照明水平。
