ACR–AAPM–SIIM Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging

Norweck, James T.; Seibert, J. Anthony; Andriole, Katherine P.; Clunie, David A.; Curran, Bruce; Flynn, Michael J.; Krupiński, Elizabeth A.; Lieto, Ralph P.; Peck, Donald J.; Mian, Tariq A.; Wyatt, Margaret

doi:10.1007/s10278-012-9522-2

Cited by 94 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This culture has led to the creation of standards that treat displays. 15 This issue is not yet fully enabled and appreciated within the culture of DP practice or evaluation. Study reports do very little to describe the display characteristics and calibration, with recent work being the exception.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present a platform for designing and executing studies that compare pathologists interpreting histopathology of whole slide images (WSIs) on a computer display to pathologists interpreting glass slides on an optical microscope. eeDAP is an evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology. The key element in eeDAP is the registration of the WSI to the glass slide. Registration is accomplished through computer control of the microscope stage and a camera mounted on the microscope that acquires real-time images of the microscope field of view (FOV). Registration allows for the evaluation of the same regions of interest (ROIs) in both domains. This can reduce or eliminate disagreements that arise from pathologists interpreting different areas and focuses on the comparison of image quality. We reduced the pathologist interpretation area from an entire glass slide (10 to 30 mm 2 ) to small ROIs (<50 μm 2 ). We also made possible the evaluation of individual cells. We summarize eeDAP's software and hardware and provide calculations and corresponding images of the microscope FOV and the ROIs extracted from the WSIs. The eeDAP software can be downloaded from the Google code website (project: eeDAP) as a MATLAB source or as a precompiled stand-alone license-free application. © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Recommendations are more stringent for primary displays than for secondary displays. By way of background, display devices are categorized by their function as either primary or secondary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 It is also well recognized that display performance will degrade with increasing time in use, which in turn may degrade diagnostic performance. 9 The display characteristics of the iPad have been previously reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of time in use on the display performance of the iPad

Caffery¹,

Manthey²,

Sim³

2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes to the luminance, luminance uniformity and conformance to the digital imaging and communication in medicine greyscale standard display function (GSDF) as a function of time in use for the iPad. Methods: Luminance measurements of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Group 18 task group (TG18) luminance uniformity and luminance test patterns (TG18-UNL and TG18-LN8) were performed using a calibrated near-range luminance meter. Nine sets of measurements were taken, where the time in use of the iPad ranged from 0 to 2500 h. Results: The maximum luminance (L max ) of the display decreased (367-338 cdm 22

show abstract

“…The ACR recommends that conventional CT reading must be performed under dim ambient lighting (20-40 lx) in the case of PACS workstation reviewing because bright ambient lighting can significantly reduce the display contrast, thereby reducing the viewer's ability to perceive subtle image details [24]. However, in real clinical situations, emergency physicians frequently perform the CT reading under the general residential indoor lighting; thus, the smartphonebased televiewing should also be performed under bright ambient lighting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The iPhone 5 provides a similar image viewing quality compared to the clinical LCD monitor [7,18,[20][21][22]. The iPhone 5 has sufficient pixel pitch to support the radiology images at their original size and sufficient brightness and contrast to meet the ACR guideline recommendations for medical monitors [24]. The difference in the image quality between the radiology images transmitted to the iPhone under the low-speed 3G network in real time and the original images of the high-resolution LCD monitor was not significant, given that there was no significant difference in the interpretative performance in the CT reading for acute appendicitis, which requires the perception of complicated, subtle, and detailed findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Feasibility Study of Real-Time Remote CT Reading for Suspected Acute Appendicitis Using an iPhone

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an iPhone-based remote control system as a real-time remote computed tomography (CT) reading tool for suspected appendicitis using a third-generation (3G) network under suboptimal illumination. One hundred twenty abdominal CT scans were selected; 60 had no signs of appendicitis, whereas the remaining 60 had signs of appendicitis. The 16 raters reviewed the images using the liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstation, as well as using an iPhone connected to the PACS workstation via a remote control system. We graded the probability of the presence of acute appendicitis for each examination using a five-point Likert scale. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis using the iPhone and the LCD monitor were high, and they were not significantly different (sensitivity P=1.00, specificity P=0.14). The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for all CT readings with the iPhone and LCD monitor were 0.978 (confidence interval 0.965-0.991) and 0.974 (0.960-0.988), respectively, and the two devices did not have significantly different diagnostic performances (P=0.55). The inter-rater agreement for both devices was very good; the kappa value for the iPhone was 0.809 (0.793-0.826), and that for the LCD monitor was 0.817 (0.801-0.834). Each rater had moderate-tovery good intra-observer agreement between the two devices. We verified the feasibility of an iPhone-based remote control system as a real-time remote CT reading tool for identifying suspected appendicitis using a 3G network and suboptimal illumination.

show abstract

ACR–AAPM–SIIM Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging

Cited by 94 publications

References 5 publications

Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies

Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies

The effect of time in use on the display performance of the iPad

A Feasibility Study of Real-Time Remote CT Reading for Suspected Acute Appendicitis Using an iPhone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About