Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Display Resolution on Time to Diagnosis with Virtual Pathology Slides in a Systematic Search Task

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Performing diagnoses using virtual slides can take pathologists significantly longer than with glass slides, presenting a significant barrier to the use of virtual slides in routine practice. Given the benefits in pathology workflow efficiency and safety that virtual slides promise, it is important to understand reasons for this difference and identify opportunities for improvement. The effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides has not previously been explored. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides. Nine pathologists participated in a counterbalanced crossover study, viewing axillary lymph node slides on a microscope, a 23-in 2.3-megapixel single-screen display and a three-screen 11-megapixel display consisting of three 27-in displays. Time to diagnosis and time to first target were faster on the microscope than on the single and three-screen displays. There was no significant difference between the microscope and the three-screen display in time to first target, while the time taken on the single-screen display was significantly higher than that on the microscope. The results suggest that a digital pathology workstation with an increased number of pixels may make it easier to identify where cancer is located in the initial slide overview, enabling quick location of diagnostically relevant regions of interest. However, when a comprehensive, detailed search of a slide has to be made, increased resolution may not offer any additional benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Li X, et al: A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. Hum Pathol 38:1842–1848, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Velez N, Jukic D, Ho J: Evaluation of 2 whole-slide imaging applications in dermatopathology. Hum Pathol 39:1341–1349, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Treanor D, Jordan-Owers N, Hodrien J, Wood J, Quirke P, Ruddle RA: Virtual reality Powerwall versus conventional microscope for viewing pathology slides: an experimental comparison. Histopathology 55:294–300, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Randell R, Ruddle RA, Mello-Thoms C, Thomas RG, Quirke P, Treanor D: Virtual reality microscope versus conventional microscope regarding time to diagnosis: an experimental study. Histopathology 62:351–358, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gur D, et al: The Effect of Image Display Size on Observer Performance: An Assessment of Variance Components. Acad Radiol 13:409–413, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bessho Y, Yamaguchi M, Fujita H, Azuma M: Usefulness of Reduced Image Display Size in Softcopy Reading: Evaluation of Lung Nodules in Chest Screening. Acad Radiol 16:940–946, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Haene N, et al: Comparison study of five different display modalities for whole slide images in surgical pathology and cytopathology in Europe. Proceedings of SPIE, Florida, USA, 2013. doi:10.1117/12.2001594

  8. Sharma G, et al: Evaluation of different display modalities for whole slide images in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2: S44–45, 2011

  9. Ball R, North C, Bowman DA: Move to improve: promoting physical navigation to increase user performance with large displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, USA, 2007, pp 191–200

  10. Ball R, North C: The effects of peripheral vision and physical navigation on large scale visualization. Proceedings of Graphics Interface, Canadian Information Processing Society Toronto, Canada, 2008, pp 9–16

  11. Ruddle RA, et al. E: Performance and interaction behaviour during visual search on large, high-resolution displays. Information Visualization, 2014. doi:10.1177/1473871613500978

  12. Têtu B, Evans A: Canadian Licensure for the Use of Digital Pathology for Routine Diagnoses. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:302–304, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton PW, Wang Y, McCullough SJ: Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. APMIS 120:305–315, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ramey J, Fung KM, Hassell LA: Use of mobile high-resolution device for remote frozen section evaluation of whole slide images. J Pathol Inform 2, doi:10.4103/2153-3539.84276, 2011

  15. Sibbald B, Roberts C: Understanding controlled trials. Crossover trials. BMJ 316:1719–1720, 1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Field A: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage, London, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nodine CF, Kundel HL: The cognitive side of visual search in Radiology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  18. Drew T, Evans K, Võ ML-H, Jacobson FL, Wolfe JM: Informatics in Radiology: What Can You See in a Single Glance and How Might This Guide Visual Search in Medical Images? Radiographics 33:263–274, 2013

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolfe JM, Võ MLH, Evans KK, Greene MR: Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways. Trends Cogn Sci 15:77–84, 2011

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Krupinski EA, et al: Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides. Implications for medical education and differences with experience. Hum Pathol 37:1543–1556, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krupinski EA, Graham AR, Weinstein RS: Characterizing the development of visual search expertise in pathology residents viewing whole slide images. Hum Pathol 44:357–364, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the pathologists at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust who participated in this experiment. We would also like to thank Mike Hale, Dave Turner and Steve Thoms for their assistance in setting up various aspects of this evaluation and Preetha Chengot for her assistance with the photography. This report is independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the New and Emerging Applications of Technology (NEAT) programme. The authors acknowledge the support of the NIHR, through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network.

Conflict of interest

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9UT, UK

    Rebecca Randell

  2. Aire Court Community Unit, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, LS10 4BS, UK

    Thilina Ambepitiya

  3. Medical Radiation Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2150, Australia

    Claudia Mello-Thoms

  4. School of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Roy A. Ruddle & Rhys G. Thomas

  5. Medical Physics and Engineering, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    David Brettle

  6. St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    Darren Treanor

  7. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Wellcome Trust Brenner Building, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    Darren Treanor

Authors
  1. Rebecca Randell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thilina Ambepitiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudia Mello-Thoms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roy A. Ruddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Brettle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rhys G. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Darren Treanor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Randell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Randell, R., Ambepitiya, T., Mello-Thoms, C. et al. Effect of Display Resolution on Time to Diagnosis with Virtual Pathology Slides in a Systematic Search Task. J Digit Imaging 28, 68–76 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9726-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9726-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation