4.6 Review

Whole Slide Image Quality in Digital Pathology: Review and Perspectives

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 131005-131035

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3227437

关键词

Digital pathology; whole slide image; computer-aided diagnosis; computational pathology; quality control; artifacts

资金

  1. Region Normandie
  2. BPI France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the development of WSI scanners and artificial intelligence algorithms, computational WSI analysis is becoming possible, but it faces challenges in dealing with artifacts. This review focuses on computational approaches for quality control in WSI, addressing issues such as sample preparation artifacts, compression artifacts, color variations, and out-of-focus areas. The importance of implementing quality control measures is confirmed through analysis of WSI clinical routine, and perspectives on including a computational quality process in pathology diagnosis pipeline are drawn.
With the advent of whole slide image (WSI) scanners, pathology is undergoing a digital revolution. Simultaneously, with the development of image analysis algorithms based on artificial intelligence tools, the application of computerized WSI analysis can now be expected. However, transferring such tools into clinical practice is very challenging as they must deal with many artifacts that can occur during sample preparation and digitization. Therefore, the quality of WSIs is of prime importance, and we propose a review of the state-of-the-art of computational approaches for quality control. In particular, we focus on WSI quality issues related to the presence of sample preparation artifacts, compression artifacts, color variations, and out-of-focus areas. An analysis of the monthly WSI clinical routine in a cytological laboratory confirms the importance of implementing quality control measures. Given this observation, we draw perspectives on how a computational quality process can be included in a computational pathology diagnosis pipeline.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据