Cargando…
Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions
BACKGROUND: Virtual slides are viewed using interactive software that enables the user to simulate the behaviour of a conventional optical microscope, like adjusting magnifications and navigating to any portion of the image. Nowadays, information about the performance and features of web-based solut...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2500104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18673512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-3-S1-S23 |
_version_ | 1782158298953285632 |
---|---|
author | Rojo, Marcial García Gallardo, Antonio J González, Lucía Peces, Carlos Murillo, Cristina González, Jesús Sacristán, Jose |
author_facet | Rojo, Marcial García Gallardo, Antonio J González, Lucía Peces, Carlos Murillo, Cristina González, Jesús Sacristán, Jose |
author_sort | Rojo, Marcial García |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Virtual slides are viewed using interactive software that enables the user to simulate the behaviour of a conventional optical microscope, like adjusting magnifications and navigating to any portion of the image. Nowadays, information about the performance and features of web-based solutions for reading slides in real environments is still scarce. The objective of this study is analyzing the subjective experience of pathologists with virtual slides, comparing the time needed to read slides using different web viewers and different network connections. METHODS: Eight slides were randomly selected (4 biopsies and 2 cytologies) from Hospital General de Ciudad Real (HGCR) archives. Three different virtual slide web-viewing solutions were analyzed: Aperio web server, Olympus NetImage Server, and Aurora mScope. Five pathologists studied to time needed to access images of each virtual slide, selecting a panoramic view, 10 low magnification fields, and 20 high magnification fields. RESULTS: Aperio viewer is very efficient in overview images. Aurora viewer is especially efficient in lower magnifications (10×). For larger magnifications (20× and 40×) no significant differences were found between different vendors. Olympus was found to be the most user-friendly interface. When comparing Internet with intranet connections, despite being slower, users also felt comfortable using virtual slides through Internet connection. CONCLUSION: Available web solutions for virtual slides have different advantages, mainly in functionalities and optimization for different magnifications. Pathologist should select the solutions adapted to their needs. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2500104 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-25001042008-08-08 Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions Rojo, Marcial García Gallardo, Antonio J González, Lucía Peces, Carlos Murillo, Cristina González, Jesús Sacristán, Jose Diagn Pathol Proceedings BACKGROUND: Virtual slides are viewed using interactive software that enables the user to simulate the behaviour of a conventional optical microscope, like adjusting magnifications and navigating to any portion of the image. Nowadays, information about the performance and features of web-based solutions for reading slides in real environments is still scarce. The objective of this study is analyzing the subjective experience of pathologists with virtual slides, comparing the time needed to read slides using different web viewers and different network connections. METHODS: Eight slides were randomly selected (4 biopsies and 2 cytologies) from Hospital General de Ciudad Real (HGCR) archives. Three different virtual slide web-viewing solutions were analyzed: Aperio web server, Olympus NetImage Server, and Aurora mScope. Five pathologists studied to time needed to access images of each virtual slide, selecting a panoramic view, 10 low magnification fields, and 20 high magnification fields. RESULTS: Aperio viewer is very efficient in overview images. Aurora viewer is especially efficient in lower magnifications (10×). For larger magnifications (20× and 40×) no significant differences were found between different vendors. Olympus was found to be the most user-friendly interface. When comparing Internet with intranet connections, despite being slower, users also felt comfortable using virtual slides through Internet connection. CONCLUSION: Available web solutions for virtual slides have different advantages, mainly in functionalities and optimization for different magnifications. Pathologist should select the solutions adapted to their needs. BioMed Central 2008-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2500104/ /pubmed/18673512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-3-S1-S23 Text en Copyright © 2008 Rojo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Proceedings Rojo, Marcial García Gallardo, Antonio J González, Lucía Peces, Carlos Murillo, Cristina González, Jesús Sacristán, Jose Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title | Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title_full | Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title_fullStr | Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title_full_unstemmed | Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title_short | Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
title_sort | reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions |
topic | Proceedings |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2500104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18673512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-3-S1-S23 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rojomarcialgarcia readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT gallardoantonioj readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT gonzalezlucia readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT pecescarlos readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT murillocristina readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT gonzalezjesus readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions AT sacristanjose readingvirtualslideusingwebviewersresultsofsubjectiveexperiencewiththreedifferentsolutions |