PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15901437

Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization.

Yukako Yagi·John R Gilbertson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The process of digital imaging in microscopy is a series of operations, each contributing to the quality of the final image that is displayed on the computer monitor. The operations include sample preparation and staining by histology, optical image formation by the microscope, digital image sampling by the camera sensor, postprocessing and compression, transmission across the network and display on the monitor. There is an extensive literature about digital imaging and each step of the process is fairly well understood. However, the complete process is very hard to standardize or even to understand fully. The important concepts for pathology imaging standards are: (1) systems should be able to share image files, (2) the standards should allow the transmission of information on baseline colours and recommended display parameters, (3) the images should be useful to the pathologist, not necessarily better or worse than direct examination of a slide under the microscope, (4) a mechanism to evaluate image quality objectively should be present, (5) a mechanism to adjust and correct the minor errors of tissue processing should be developed, (6) a public organization should support pathologists in the development of standards.

Explore related subjects

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyPathology, ClinicalReference StandardsTelepathologyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yukako Yagi, John R Gilbertson. 2005. Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization.. https://doi.org/10.1258/1357633053688705

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Comparison of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis radiographs with preselected end vertebrae: traditional versus digital acquisition.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare variability in Cobb angle between digitally and traditionally acquired scoliosis radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown that the 95% confidence interval for Cobb angle can vary from 2.6 degrees to 8.8 degrees. No study directly comparing Cobb angles measured from traditional and digitally acquired radiographs has been reported. METHODS: A spine model simulating 25 single right thoracic curves (range, 20 degrees-60 degrees) was imaged using traditional and digital techniques. Traditional films and miniaturized printed digital films were each measured twice manually. Digital films were also measured twice using computer imaging software. RESULTS: Overall mean angle and (95% confidence interval) were 41.7 degrees (39.1 degrees-44.3 degrees) for traditional, 40.6 degrees (37.4 degrees-43.8 degrees) for digital, and 39.7 degrees (36.3 degrees-43.1 degrees) for computer measurements. Overall correlation was 0.994 for traditional and digital, 0.987 for traditional and computer, and 0.993 for digital and computer. Fixed effect model analysis demonstrated that, although a statistically significant difference existed between the 3 methods of measuring the Cobb angle (P < 0.0001), the difference between methods was less than 2 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Any of the 3 evaluated methods of measurement can be used to measure Cobb angles. Additionally, the methods can be used interchangeably.

Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted↗
PubMed2007

Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Free-response data consist of a set of mark-ratings pairs. Before analysis, the data are classified or "scored" into lesion and non-lesion localizations. The scoring is done by choosing an acceptance-radius and classifying marks within the acceptance-radius of lesion centers as lesion localizations, and all other marks are classified as non-lesion localizations. The scored data are plotted as a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) curve, essentially a plot of appropriately normalized numbers of lesion localizations vs. non-lesion localizations. Scored FROC curves are frequently used to compare imaging systems and computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms. However, the choice of acceptance-radius is arbitrary. This makes it difficult to compare curves from different studies and to estimate true performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To resolve this issue the concept of two types of marks is introduced: perceptual hits and perceptual misses. A perceptual hit is a mark made in response to the observer seeing the lesion. A perceptual miss is a mark made in response to the observer seeing a (lesion-like) non-lesion. A method of estimating the most probable numbers of perceptual hits and misses is described. This allows one to plot a perceptual FROC operating point and by extension a perceptual FROC curve. Unlike a scored FROC operating point, a perceptual point is independent of the choice of acceptance-radius. The method does not allow one to identify individual marks as perceptual hits or misses-only the most probable numbers. It is based on a three-parameter statistical model of the spatial distributions of perceptual hits and misses relative to lesion centers. RESULTS: The method has been applied to an observer dataset in which mammographers and residents with different levels of experience were asked to locate lesions in mammograms. The perceptual operating points suggest superior performance for the mammographers and equivalent performance for residents in the first and second mammography rotations. These results and the model validation are preliminary as they are based on a small dataset. CONCLUSION: The significance of this study is showing that it is possible to probabilistically determine if a mark resulted from seeing a lesion or a non-lesion. Using the method developed in this study one could perform acceptance-radius independent estimation of observer performance.

Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted↗
PubMed2006

Bunched phase encoding (BPE): a new fast data acquisition method in MRI.

A new fast data acquisition method, "Bunched Phase Encoding" (BPE), is presented. In conventional rectilinear data acquisition, only a readout gradient (and no phase encoding gradient) is applied when k-space data are acquired. Reduction of the number of phase encoding lines by increasing the phase encoding step size often leads to aliasing artifacts. Papoulis's generalized sampling theory asserts that in some cases aliasing artifact-free signals can be reconstructed even if the Nyquist criterion is violated in some regions of the Fourier domain. In this study, Papoulis's theoretical construct is exploited to reduce the number of acquired phase encoding lines. To achieve this, k-space data are sampled along a "zigzag" trajectory during each readout; samples are acquired at a sampling frequency higher than that of the normal rectilinear acquisition. The total number of TR cycles and, hence, the total scan time can be reduced. The resultant signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) often varies across the reconstructed image when using the BPE technique, and the image SNR depends on the reconstruction method. This work is comparable to a gradient based version of parallel imaging. Evidence suggests it may serve as the basis for new opportunities for fast data acquisition in MRI.

Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted↗