Use of color images in medical imaging has increased significantly the last few years. Color information is essential for applications such as ophthalmology, dermatology and clinical photography. Use of color at least brings benefits for other applications such as endoscopy, laparoscopy and digital pathology. Remarkably, as of today, there is no agreed standard on how color information needs to be visualized for medical applications. This lack of standardization results in large variability of how color images are visualized and it makes quality assurance a challenge. For this reason FDA and ICC recently organized a joint summit on color in medical imaging (CMI). At this summit, one of the suggestions was that modalities such as digital pathology could benefit from using a perceptually uniform color space (T. Kimpe, “Color Behavior of Medical Displays,” CMI presentation, May 2013). Perceptually uniform spaces have already been used for many years in the radiology community where the DICOM GSDF standard provides linearity in luminance but not in color behavior. In this paper we quantify perceptual uniformity, using CIE’s ΔE2000 as a color distance metric, of several color spaces that are typically used for medical applications. We applied our method to theoretical color spaces Gamma 1.8, 2.0, & 2.2, standard sRGB, and DICOM (correction LUT for gray applied to all primaries). In addition, we also measured color spaces (i.e., native behavior) of a high-end medical display (Barco Coronis Fusion 6MP DL, MDCC-6130), and a consumer display (Dell 1907FP). Our results indicate that sRGB & the native color space on the Barco Coronis Fusion exhibit the least non-uniformity within their group. However, the remaining degree of perceptual non-uniformity is still significant and there is room for improvement.
Digital pathology systems typically consist of a slide scanner, processing software, visualization software, and finally a workstation with display for visualization of the digital slide images. This paper studies whether digital pathology images can look different when presenting them on different display systems, and whether these visual differences can result in different perceived contrast of clinically relevant features. By analyzing a set of four digital pathology images of different subspecialties on three different display systems, it was concluded that pathology images look different when visualized on different display systems. The importance of these visual differences is elucidated when they are located in areas of the digital slide that contain clinically relevant features. Based on a calculation of dE2000 differences between background and clinically relevant features, it was clear that perceived contrast of clinically relevant features is influenced by the choice of display system. Furthermore, it seems that the specific calibration target chosen for the display system has an important effect on the perceived contrast of clinically relevant features. Preliminary results suggest that calibrating to DICOM GSDF calibration performed slightly worse than sRGB, while a new experimental calibration target CSDF performed better than both DICOM GSDF and sRGB. This result is promising as it suggests that further research work could lead to better definition of an optimized calibration target for digital pathology images resulting in a positive effect on clinical performance.
Use of color images in medical imaging has increased significantly the last few years. One of the applications in which color plays an essential role is digital pathology. Remarkably, as of today there is no agreed standard on how color information needs to be processed and visualized for medical imaging applications such as digital pathology. This lack of standardization results into large variability of how color images are visualized and it makes consistency and quality assurance a challenge. For this reason FDA and ICC recently organized a joint summit on color in medical imaging. This paper focuses on the visualization and display side of the digital pathology imaging pipeline. Requirements and desired characteristics for visualization of digital pathology images are discussed in depth. Several technological alternative solutions and considered. And finally a proposal is made for a possible architecture for a display & visualization framework for digital pathology images. The main goal for making this architectural proposal is to facilitate discussion that could lead to standardization.
User experience with viewing images in pathology is crucial for accurate interpretation and diagnosis. With digital
pathology, images are being read on a display system, and this poses new types of questions: such as what is the
difference in terms of pixelation, refresh lag or obscured features compared to an optical microscope. Is there a resultant change in user performance in terms of speed of slide review, perception of adequacy and quality or in diagnostic confidence? A prior psychophysical study was carried out comparing various display modalities on whole slide imaging (WSI) in pathology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) in the USA. This prior study compared professional and non-professional grade display modalities and highlighted the importance of using a medical grade display to view pathological digital images. This study was duplicated in Europe at the Department of Pathology in Erasme Hospital (Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)) in an attempt to corroborate these findings. Digital WSI with corresponding glass slides of 58 cases including surgical pathology and cytopathology slides of varying difficulty were employed. Similar non-professional and professional grade display modalities were compared to an optical microscope (Olympus BX51). Displays ranged from a laptop (DELL Latitude D620), to a consumer grade display (DELL E248WFPb), to two professional grade monitors (Eizo CG245W and Barco MDCC-6130). Three pathologists were
selected from the Department of Pathology in Erasme Hospital (ULB) in Belgium to view and interpret the pathological
images on these different displays. The results show that non-professional grade displays (laptop and consumer) have
inferior user experience compared to professional grade monitors and the optical microscope.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.