OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 3-D vs. 2-D virtual microscopy as adjuncts to education and assessment in cervical cytology. STUDY DESIGN: Five cervical cytology slides were acquired in 2-D; then the identical area of the slide was acquired in 3-D, resulting in 2 sets of virtual slides for comparison with the original glass slide. Seventy-nine paid volunteer cytologists and cytotechnology students participated. Approximately half were sent the 2-D set of slides via the Web, and the others a 3-D set of slides on a DVD. Evaluators examined the virtual slides and committed to an interpretation. After receipt of the original glass slides, a second interpretation was made, if different from the virtual slide interpretation. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy using virtual cytology slides was similar to that for glass slides (94% vs. 96%). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between 2-D and 3-D slides (p = 0.28); however, the ability to focus 3-D slides in the z-axis was strongly endorsed by the participants because of the uncertainty and frustration of having some cells out of focus on 2-D virtual slides. CONCLUSION: There was consensus that virtual cervical cytology slides would be a useful augmentation to education and testing.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 3-D vs. 2-D virtual microscopy as adjuncts to education and assessment in cervical cytology. STUDY DESIGN: Five cervical cytology slides were acquired in 2-D; then the identical area of the slide was acquired in 3-D, resulting in 2 sets of virtual slides for comparison with the original glass slide. Seventy-nine paid volunteer cytologists and cytotechnology students participated. Approximately half were sent the 2-D set of slides via the Web, and the others a 3-D set of slides on a DVD. Evaluators examined the virtual slides and committed to an interpretation. After receipt of the original glass slides, a second interpretation was made, if different from the virtual slide interpretation. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy using virtual cytology slides was similar to that for glass slides (94% vs. 96%). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between 2-D and 3-D slides (p = 0.28); however, the ability to focus 3-D slides in the z-axis was strongly endorsed by the participants because of the uncertainty and frustration of having some cells out of focus on 2-D virtual slides. CONCLUSION: There was consensus that virtual cervical cytology slides would be a useful augmentation to education and testing.
Authors: Christel Daniel; François Macary; Marcial García Rojo; Jacques Klossa; Arvydas Laurinavičius; Bruce A Beckwith; Vincenzo Della Mea Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Amber D Donnelly; Maheswari S Mukherjee; Elizabeth R Lyden; Julia A Bridge; Subodh M Lele; Najia Wright; Mary F McGaughey; Alicia M Culberson; Adam J Horn; Whitney R Wedel; Stanley J Radio Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2013-12-31
Authors: Simone L Van Es; Rakesh K Kumar; Wendy M Pryor; Elizabeth L Salisbury; Gary M Velan Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Maheswari S Mukherjee; Amber D Donnelly; Elizabeth R Lyden; Whitney R Wedel; Mary F McGaughey; John J Baker; Stanley J Radio Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2015-07-28