Impact of digital image manipulation in cytology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 57-61

  Pinco, Jeffery ^a   Goulart, Robert A ^a   Otis, Christopher N ^a   Garb, Jane ^a   Pantanowitz, Liron ^a,b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BAYSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE TEST; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIGITAL IMAGING; EPITHELIUM; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; PAPANICOLAOU TEST;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHOTOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TELEPATHOLOGY; UTERINE CERVICAL DISEASES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 58349103359     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Beals TF. Digital imaging in anatomic pathology. Lab Med. 2001;32:327-330.
2. Pantanowitz L, Henricks WH, Beckwith BA. Medical laboratory informatics. Clin Lab Med. 2007;27:823-843.
3. Allen EA, Ollayos CW, Tellado MV, et al. Characteristics of a telecytology consultation service. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:1323-1326.
4. Lee ES, Kim IS, Choi JS, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of telecytology diagnosis of cervical smears: a tool for quality assurance programs. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;1 19:356-360.
5. Marchevsky AM, Khurana R, Thomas P, Scharre K, Farias P, Bose S. The use of virtual microscopy for proficiency testing in gynecologic cytopathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:349-355.
6. Shapter MJ. Image manipulation and the question of ethics. J Audiov Media Med. 1993;16:130-132.
7. Anderson C. Easy-to-alter digital images raise fears of tampering. Science. 1994;263:317-318.
8. Barry CJ, Yogesan K, Constable Ij, Eikelboom RH. A case for electronic manipulation of medical images? J Audiov Media Med. 1999;22:15-20.
9. Tsang A, Sweet D, Wood RE. Potential for fraudulent use of digital radiography. JAm Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1325-1329.
10. Hayden JE. Digital manipulation in scientific images: some ethical considerations. J Biocommun. 2000;27:11-19.
11. S urvarna SK, Ansary MA. Histopathology and the 'third great lie': when is an image not a scientifically authentic image? Histopathology. 2001;39:441-446.
12. Cutrone M, Grimalt R. The true and false: pixel-byte syndrome. Pediatr Dermatol. 2001;18:523-526.
13. Rossner M, Yamada KM. What's in a picture?: the temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol. 2004;166:11-15.
14. Guneri P, Akdeniz BG. Fraudulent management of digital endodontic images. Int Endod J. 2004;37:214-220.
15. Nouraei SA, Frame J, Nduka C. Uses and abuses of digital imaging in plastic surgery. Int J Surg. 2005;3:254-257.
16. O'Brien MJ, Takahasi M, Brugal G, et al. Digital imagery/telecytology: International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary: diagnostic cytology towards the 21st century: an international expert conference and tutorial. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:148-164.
17. Pritt BS, Gibson PC, Kumarasen C. Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: a proposal for general and academic use. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10:96-100.
18. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1981:143-147.
19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
20. Donner A, Klar N. A comparison of methods for testing homogeneity of proportions in teratologic studies. Stat Med. 1994;13:1253-1264.
21. Kim B, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, et al. Dynamic telecytopathology of on site rapid cytology diagnoses for pancreatic carcinoma. Cytojournal. 2006;3:27.
22. Jialdasani R, Desai S, Gupta M, et al. An analysis of 46 static telecytology cases over a period of two years. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12:311-314.
23. Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): a web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer. 2007;111:15-25.
24. Yagi Y, Gilbertson JR. Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11:109-116.
25. Marcelo A, Fontelo P, Farolan M, Hernani C. Effect of image compression on telepathology: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1653-1656.
26. Lo WY, Puchalski SM. Digital image processing. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2008;49(suppl 1):S42-S47.
27. George LD, Lusty J, Owens DR, Ollerton RL. Effect of software manipulation (Photoshop) of digitised retinal images on the grading of diabetic retinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:911-913.
28. Karazalus CP, Palmbach TT, Lee HC. Digital enhancement of sub-quality bitemark photographs. J Forensic Sci. 2001;46:954-958.
29. Blitzer HL, Jacobia J. Forensic Digital Imaging and Photography. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 2002.