背景:尚未完全定义用于整个幻灯片图像(WSI)解释的显示选择的最低标准的建立。最近,病理学家越来越喜欢使用远程显示器进行临床诊断。我们的研究旨在评估和比较三个固定工作显示器和一个远程个人显示器的性能,以准确识别集成到WSI中的十个选定病理特征。
方法:使用飞利浦扫描仪将苏木精和伊红染色的载玻片数字化。七名执业病理学家和三名居民使用LG检查了90个WSI,以确定10个病理特征,戴尔,和三星和可选的消费级显示器。十个病理特征包括嗜酸性粒细胞,中性粒细胞,浆细胞,肉芽肿,坏死,粘蛋白,含铁血黄素,水晶,核仁,和线粒体。
结果:在三种类型的“固定”工作场所显示器中,在不同类型的显示器上识别十个特征的准确性没有显着差异。在中性粒细胞的鉴定中观察到最高的准确性,嗜酸性粒细胞,浆细胞,肉芽肿,和粘蛋白。另一方面,一个较低的精度被观察到用于鉴定晶体,有丝分裂,坏死,含铁血黄素,和核仁.参与病理学家和居民更喜欢使用像素计数较高的较大显示器(>30英寸),决议,和亮度。
结论:大多数特征可以使用任何显示器来识别。然而,某些功能对三种固定显示类型提出了更多挑战。此外,根据病理学家的偏好选择的远程个人消费级显示器的使用显示出相似的特征识别准确性。显示特性的几个因素似乎会影响病理学家的显示偏好,例如显示尺寸,颜色,对比度,像素计数,和亮度校准。本研究支持在临床数字病理学工作流程中使用标准的“解锁”供应商不可知显示器,而不是购买“锁定”和更昂贵的显示器,这些显示器是数字病理学系统的一部分。
BACKGROUND: The establishment of minimum standards for display selection for the whole slide image (WSI) interpretation has not been fully defined. Recently, pathologists have increasingly preferred using remote displays for clinical diagnostics. Our study aims to assess and compare the performance of three fixed work displays and one remote personal display in accurately identifying ten selected pathologic features integrated into WSIs.
METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin-stained glass slides were digitized using Philips scanners. Seven practicing pathologists and three residents reviewed ninety WSIs to identify ten pathologic features using the LG, Dell, and Samsung and an optional consumer-grade display. Ten pathologic features included eosinophils, neutrophils, plasma cells, granulomas, necrosis, mucin,
hemosiderin, crystals, nucleoli, and mitoses.
RESULTS: The accuracy of the identification of ten features on different types of displays did not significantly differ among the three types of \"fixed\" workplace displays. The highest accuracy was observed for the identification of neutrophils, eosinophils, plasma cells, granuloma, and mucin. On the other hand, a lower accuracy was observed for the identification of crystals, mitoses, necrosis,
hemosiderin, and nucleoli. Participant pathologists and residents preferred the use of larger displays (>30″) with a higher pixel count, resolution, and luminance.
CONCLUSIONS: Most features can be identified using any display. However, certain features posed more challenges across the three fixed display types. Furthermore, the use of a remote personal consumer-grade display chosen according to the pathologists\' preference showed similar feature identification accuracy. Several factors of display characteristics seemed to influence pathologists\' display preferences such as the display size, color, contrast ratio, pixel count, and luminance calibration. This study supports the use of standard \"unlocked\" vendor-agnostic displays for clinical digital pathology workflow rather than purchasing \"locked\" and more expensive displays that are part of a digital pathology system.