Limits...
Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions.

Rojo MG, Gallardo AJ, González L, Peces C, Murillo C, González J, Sacristán J - Diagn Pathol (2008)

Bottom Line: For larger magnifications (20x and 40x) no significant differences were found between different vendors.Olympus was found to be the most user-friendly interface.Pathologists should select the solutions adapted to their needs.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Calle Tomelloso s/n, Ciudad Real, Spain. marcial@cim.es.

ABSTRACT

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 (10x). For larger magnifications (20x and 40x) 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. Pathologists should select the solutions adapted to their needs.

No MeSH data available.


Aurora virtual slide viewer. Aurora java applet allows reading multiple file formats (SVS, VSI, DICOM, etc.).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2500104&req=5

Figure 3: Aurora virtual slide viewer. Aurora java applet allows reading multiple file formats (SVS, VSI, DICOM, etc.).

Mentions: User interface of the three virtual web viewers are quite different. Olympus (Figure 1) and Aperio (Figure 2) web viewers are based on Adobe Flash© plug-in, and Aurora viewer (Figure 3) is a Java applet. Aperio viewers is a Zoomify-based plug-in with basic functions like navigation, zoom and map of the slide, and optional annotation list. Olympus web viewer was considered by all users as most user friendly, but it also has only basic functions. Aurora java applet took a mean time of 30 seconds to load the first time, and it has additional functions like navigation mode or measuring tools, additionally, it is the only viewer that can be used to add new annotations and text associated to the complete virtual slide or a specific area.


Reading virtual slide using web viewers: results of subjective experience with three different solutions.

Rojo MG, Gallardo AJ, González L, Peces C, Murillo C, González J, Sacristán J - Diagn Pathol (2008)

Aurora virtual slide viewer. Aurora java applet allows reading multiple file formats (SVS, VSI, DICOM, etc.).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2500104&req=5

Figure 3: Aurora virtual slide viewer. Aurora java applet allows reading multiple file formats (SVS, VSI, DICOM, etc.).
Mentions: User interface of the three virtual web viewers are quite different. Olympus (Figure 1) and Aperio (Figure 2) web viewers are based on Adobe Flash© plug-in, and Aurora viewer (Figure 3) is a Java applet. Aperio viewers is a Zoomify-based plug-in with basic functions like navigation, zoom and map of the slide, and optional annotation list. Olympus web viewer was considered by all users as most user friendly, but it also has only basic functions. Aurora java applet took a mean time of 30 seconds to load the first time, and it has additional functions like navigation mode or measuring tools, additionally, it is the only viewer that can be used to add new annotations and text associated to the complete virtual slide or a specific area.

Bottom Line: For larger magnifications (20x and 40x) no significant differences were found between different vendors.Olympus was found to be the most user-friendly interface.Pathologists should select the solutions adapted to their needs.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Calle Tomelloso s/n, Ciudad Real, Spain. marcial@cim.es.

ABSTRACT

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 (10x). For larger magnifications (20x and 40x) 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. Pathologists should select the solutions adapted to their needs.

No MeSH data available.