Literature DB >> 15668886

An array microscope for ultrarapid virtual slide processing and telepathology. Design, fabrication, and validation study.

Ronald S Weinstein1, Michael R Descour, Chen Liang, Gail Barker, Katherine M Scott, Lynne Richter, Elizabeth A Krupinski, Achyut K Bhattacharyya, John R Davis, Anna R Graham, Margaret Rennels, William C Russum, James F Goodall, Pixuan Zhou, Artur G Olszak, Bruce H Williams, James C Wyant, Peter H Bartels.   

Abstract

This paper describes the design and fabrication of a novel array microscope for the first ultrarapid virtual slide processor (DMetrix DX-40 digital slide scanner). The array microscope optics consists of a stack of three 80-element 10 x 8-lenslet arrays, constituting a "lenslet array ensemble." The lenslet array ensemble is positioned over a glass slide. Uniquely shaped lenses in each of the lenslet arrays, arranged perpendicular to the glass slide constitute a single "miniaturized microscope." A high-pixel-density image sensor is attached to the top of the lenslet array ensemble. In operation, the lenslet array ensemble is transported by a motorized mechanism relative to the long axis of a glass slide. Each of the 80 miniaturized microscopes has a lateral field of view of 250 microns. The microscopes of each row of the array are offset from the microscopes in other rows. Scanning a glass slide with the array microscope produces seamless two-dimensional image data of the entire slide, that is, a virtual slide. The optical system has a numerical aperture of N.A.= 0.65, scans slides at a rate of 3 mm per second, and accrues up to 3,000 images per second from each of the 80 miniaturized microscopes. In the ultrarapid virtual slide processing cycle, the time for image acquisition takes 58 seconds for a 2.25 cm2 tissue section. An automatic slide loader enables the scanner to process up to 40 slides per hour without operator intervention. Slide scanning and image processing are done concurrently so that post-scan processing is eliminated. A virtual slide can be viewed over the Internet immediately after the scanning is complete. A validation study compared the diagnostic accuracy of pathologist case readers using array microscopy (with images viewed as virtual slides) and conventional light microscopy. Four senior pathologists diagnosed 30 breast surgical pathology cases each using both imaging modes, but on separate occasions. Of 120 case reads by array microscopy, there were 3 incorrect diagnoses, all of which were made on difficult cases with equivocal diagnoses by light microscopy. There was a strong correlation between array microscopy vs. "truth" diagnoses based on surgical pathology reports. The kappa statistic for the array microscopy vs. truth was 0.96, which is highly significant (z=10.33, p <0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between rates of agreement with truth between array microscopy and light microscopy (z=0.134, p >0.05). Array microscopy and light microscopy did not differ significantly with respect to the number/percent of correct decisions rendered (t=0.552, p=0.6376) or equivocal decisions rendered (t=2.449, p=0.0917). Pathologists rated 95.8% of array microscopy virtual slide images as good or excellent. None were rated as poor. The mean viewing time for a DMetrix virtual slide was 1.16 minutes. The DMetrix virtual slide processor has been found to reduce the virtual slide processing cycle more than 10 fold, as compared with other virtual slide systems reported to date. The virtual slide images are of high quality and suitable for diagnostic pathology, second opinions, expert opinions, clinical trials, education, and research.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15668886     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2004.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  42 in total

1.  Observer performance using virtual pathology slides: impact of LCD color reproduction accuracy.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Louis D Silverstein; Syed F Hashmi; Anna R Graham; Ronald S Weinstein; Hans Roehrig
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 2.  Factors to keep in mind when introducing virtual microscopy.

Authors:  Katharina Glatz-Krieger; Udo Spornitz; Alain Spatz; Michael J Mihatsch; Dieter Glatz
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Enterprise imaging and multi-departmental PACS.

Authors:  Björn Bergh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-16       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  [Virtual microscopy: first applications].

Authors:  K Glatz-Krieger; D Glatz; M J Mihatsch
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 1.011

5.  Using a visual discrimination model for the detection of compression artifacts in virtual pathology images.

Authors:  Jeffrey P Johnson; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Michelle Yan; Hans Roehrig; Anna R Graham; Ronald S Weinstein
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  [Cytology in the internet].

Authors:  K Glatz; L Bubendorf; D Glatz
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.011

7.  Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases.

Authors:  Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Natália Rangel Palmier; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Paul M Speight; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Alan Roger Santos-Silva
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  High-throughput lensfree imaging and characterization of a heterogeneous cell solution on a chip.

Authors:  Ting-Wei Su; Sungkyu Seo; Anthony Erlinger; Aydogan Ozcan
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation: a pilot study using paired subspecialist correlations.

Authors:  David C Wilbur; Kalil Madi; Robert B Colvin; Lyn M Duncan; William C Faquin; Judith A Ferry; Matthew P Frosch; Stuart L Houser; Richard L Kradin; Gregory Y Lauwers; David N Louis; Eugene J Mark; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Joseph Misdraji; Gunnlauger P Nielsen; Martha B Pitman; Andrew E Rosenberg; R Neal Smith; Aliyah R Sohani; James R Stone; Rosemary H Tambouret; Chin-Lee Wu; Robert H Young; Artur Zembowicz; Wolfgang Klietmann
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.534

10.  Cytologic evaluation of image-guided fine needle aspiration biopsies via robotic microscopy: A validation study.

Authors:  Guoping Cai; Lisa A Teot; Walid E Khalbuss; Jing Yu; Sara E Monaco; Drazen M Jukic; Anil V Parwani
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2010-05-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.