The microcirculation image quality score: Development and preliminary evaluation of a proposed approach to grading quality of image acquisition for bedside videomicroscopy
The microcirculation image quality score: Development and preliminary evaluation of a proposed approach to grading quality of image acquisition for bedside videomicroscopy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.06.015
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Shapiro, Nathan I.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Massey, Michael J.;LaRochelle, Ethan;Shapiro, Nathan I.
目的：侧流暗视野显微镜目前用于在床边直接观察舌下微循环。根据我们的经验，图像采集过程中存在固有的技术挑战。本文提出并评估了一种质量保证方法，以率图像采集quality before analysis.Materials和Methods：我们确定了6个常见的图像采集和分析问题的舌下侧流暗场videos领域：照明，持续时间，重点，内容，稳定性和压力。我们通过为每个类别分配最佳（0分）、次佳但可接受（1分）或不可接受（10分）的评分创建了“微循环图像质量评分”（更多详细信息，请访问http://www.MicroscanAnalysis.blogspot.com）。我们评估了来自34名非危重急诊科患者的方便样本的59个视频，以创建一个测试集。两名评分员，彼此不知情，实施评分。任何视频的累积得分为10或更高（范围，0-60）被认为是不可接受的进一步analysis.Results：我们创建了微循环图像质量评分，并将其应用到59个视频。对于这组特定的59个视频，平均（SD）合格质量分数为1.68（0.90），平均（SD）不合格质量分数为15.74（6.19），59个视频中有27个通过质量分数小于10。最严重的故障来自压力伪影。使用Cohen评估可接受性的评价者间一致性。对于每个类别：照度（kappa = 1.0）、持续时间（kappa = 1.0）、焦点（kappa = 0.91）、内容（kappa = 0.76）、稳定性（kappa = 0.71）和压力（kappa = 0.82）以及总体通过-失败率（评分N10）（kappa = 0.66）。结论：我们的微循环图像质量评分解决了视频质量可能降低的许多常见领域。引入的标准是评估图像采集质量的客观方法，目的是选择足够质量的视频进行分析。我们初步研究中的评价者间可靠性结果表明，微循环图像质量评分在评价者之间具有合理的重复性。需要进一步评估。(C)2013年由Elsevier Inc.出版
Purpose: Side-stream dark-field microscopy is currently used to directly visualize sublingual microcirculation at the bedside. Our experience has found inherent technical challenges in the image acquisition process. This article presents and assesses a quality assurance method to rate image acquisition quality before analysis.Materials and Methods: We identified 6 common image capture and analysis problem areas in sublingual sidestream dark-field videos: illumination, duration, focus, content, stability, and pressure. We created the "Microcirculation Image Quality Score" by assigning a score of optimal (0 points), suboptimal but acceptable (1 point), or unacceptable (10 points) to each category (for further details, go to http://www.MicroscanAnalysis.blogspot.com). We evaluated 59 videos froma convenience sample of 34 unselected, noncritically ill emergency department patients to create a test set. Two raters, blinded to each other, implemented the score. Any video with a cumulative score of 10 or higher (range, 0-60) was considered unacceptable for further analysis.Results: We created the Microcirculation Image Quality Score and applied it to 59 videos. For this particular set of 59 videos, the mean (SD) passing quality score was 1.68 (0.90), and the mean (SD) failing quality score was 15.74 (6.19), with 27 of 59 passing the quality score less than 10. Highest failure occurred frompressure artifact. The interrater agreement for acceptability was assessed using Cohen. for each category: illumination (kappa = 1.0), duration (kappa = 1.0), focus (kappa = 0.91), content (kappa = 0.76), stability (kappa = 0.71), and pressure (kappa = 0.82) and overall pass-fail rates (score N10) (kappa = 0.66).Conclusion: OurMicrocirculation Image Quality Score addressesmany of the common areas where video quality can degrade. The criteria introduced are an objectiveway to assess the quality of image acquisition, with the goal of selecting videos of adequate quality for analysis. The interrater reliability results in our preliminary study suggest that the Microcirculation Image Quality Score is reasonably repeatable between reviewers. Further assessment is warranted. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.