Diagnostic informativeness of compressed digital epiluminescence microscopy images of pigmented skin lesions compared with photographs

Melanoma Research

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 255-260

  Kittler, H ^a   Seltenheim, M ^a   Pehamberger, H ^a   Wolff, K ^a   Binder, M ^a  

^a Universitatsklinik fur Dermatologie   (Austria)

Author keywords

Digital imaging; Melanoma diagnosis; ROC analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE PROCESSING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; MELANOMA; MICROSCOPE IMAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN DEFECT; TELECOMMUNICATION;

AREA UNDER CURVE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; KERATOSIS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS COMPUTING; MELANOMA; MICROSCOPY; NEVUS, PIGMENTED; PHOTOMICROGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN NEOPLASMS; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 0031809976     PISSN: 09608931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008390-199806000-00008     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Pehamberger H, Steiner A, Wolff K. In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions I. Pattern analysis of pigmented skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1987; 17: 571-583.
2. Steiner A, Binder M, Schemper M, Wolff K, Pehamberger H. Statistical evaluation of epiluminescence microscopy criteria for melanocytic pigmented skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 29: 581-588.
3. Sober AJ. Digital epiluminescence microscopy in the evaluation of pigmented lesions: a brief review. Semin Surg Oncol 1993; 9: 198-201.
4. Pehamberger H, Binder M, Steiner A, Wolff K. In vivo epiluminescence microscopy: improvement of early diagnosis of melanoma. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 100: 356S-362S.
5. Steiner A, Pehamberger H, Wolff K. In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions II. Diagnosis of small pigmented skin lesions and early detection of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 1987; 17: 584-591.
6. Binder M, Schwarz M, Winkler A, et al. Epiluminescence microscopy. A useful tool for the diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions for formally trained dermatologists. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 286-291.
7. Perednia DA, Brown NA. Teledermatology: one application of telemedicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1995; 83: 42-47.
8. Kvedar JC, Edwards RA, Menn ER, et al. The substitution of digital images for dermatologie physical examination. Arch Dermatol 1997; 133: 161-167.
9. Ryan NR. Pixelation questions: can electronic and silver halide resolutions be compared? Photo-Electronic Imaging 1992; 35: 34-39.
10. Perednia DA, Gaines JA, Butruille TW. Comparison of the clinical informativeness of photographs and digital imaging media with multiple-choice receiver operating characteristic analysis. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 292-297.
11. Rabbani M, Jones PW. Image compression techniques for medical diagnostic imaging systems. J Digit Imaging 1991; 4: 65-78.
12. Kajiwara K. JPEG compression for PACS. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1992; 37: 343-351.
13. Sneiderman C, Schosser R, Pearson TG. A comparison of JPECi and FIF compression of color medical images for dermatology. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1994; 18: 339-342.
14. Kopf AW, Elbaum M, Provost N. The use of dermoscopy and digital imaging in the diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Skin Res Technol 1997; 3: 1-7.
15. Russ JC. The Image Processing Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994.
16. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radial 1992; 27: 723-731.
17. Roe CA, Metz CE. Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation. Acad Radiol 1997; 4: 298-303.
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
19. Yamamoto LG. Using JPEG image compression to facilitate telemedicine. Am J Emerg Med 1995; 13: 55-57.
20. Rigolin VH, Robiolio PA, Spero LA, et al. Compression of digital coronary angiograms does not affect visual or quantitative assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 131-135.
21. Good WF, Maitz GS, Gur D. Joint photographic experts group (JPEG) compatible data compression of mammograms. J Digit Imaging 1994; 7: 123-132.