Comparison of four different displays for identification of select pathologic features extracted from whole slide images of surgical pathology cases

• Published in: Pathology, research and practice Vol. 251; p. 154843
• Main Authors: Shaker, Nada, Shilo, Konstantin, Esnakula, Ashwini K., Shafi, Saba, Challa, Bindu, Patel, Ankush, Kellough, David A., Hammond, Scott, Javaid, Sehrish, Satturwar, Swati, Yearsley, Martha M., Li, Zaibo, Limbach, Abberly Lott, Lujan, Giovanni, Parwani, Anil V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier GmbH 01-11-2023
• Subjects: Consumer grade displays; Medical grade displays; Surgical pathological features; Whole slide images; WSI; Surgical pathological features; Consumer grade displays; Whole slide images; Medical grade displays; WSI
• ISSN: 0344-0338; 1618-0631
• DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2023.154843

The establishment of minimum standards for display selection for the whole slide image (WSI) interpretation has not been fully defined. Recently, pathologists have increasingly preferred using remote displays for clinical diagnostics. Our study aims to assess and compare the performance of three fixed work displays and one remote personal display in accurately identifying ten selected pathologic features integrated into WSIs.
Hematoxylin and eosin-stained glass slides were digitized using Philips scanners. Seven practicing pathologists and three residents reviewed ninety WSIs to identify ten pathologic features using the LG, Dell, and Samsung and an optional consumer-grade display. Ten pathologic features included eosinophils, neutrophils, plasma cells, granulomas, necrosis, mucin, hemosiderin, crystals, nucleoli, and mitoses.
The accuracy of the identification of ten features on different types of displays did not significantly differ among the three types of “fixed” workplace displays. The highest accuracy was observed for the identification of neutrophils, eosinophils, plasma cells, granuloma, and mucin. On the other hand, a lower accuracy was observed for the identification of crystals, mitoses, necrosis, hemosiderin, and nucleoli. Participant pathologists and residents preferred the use of larger displays (>30″) with a higher pixel count, resolution, and luminance.
Most features can be identified using any display. However, certain features posed more challenges across the three fixed display types. Furthermore, the use of a remote personal consumer-grade display chosen according to the pathologists’ preference showed similar feature identification accuracy. Several factors of display characteristics seemed to influence pathologists’ display preferences such as the display size, color, contrast ratio, pixel count, and luminance calibration. This study supports the use of standard “unlocked” vendor-agnostic displays for clinical digital pathology workflow rather than purchasing “locked” and more expensive displays that are part of a digital pathology system.