A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of four different displays for identification of select pathologic features extracted from whole slide images of surgical pathology cases. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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.

Design: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2023.154843DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pathologic features
16
display
9
displays clinical
8
three fixed
8
remote personal
8
ten pathologic
8
consumer-grade display
8
plasma cells
8
accuracy observed
8
observed identification
8

Similar Publications