EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 28 / No 11 (Novembre 2012) Med Sci (Paris), 28 11 (2012) 977-982 References
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 28, Number 11, Novembre 2012
Lames virtuelles en pathologie
Page(s) 977 - 982
Section M/S Revues
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20122811017
Published online 12 November 2012
  1. Ferreira R, Moon B, Humphries J, et al. The virtual microscope. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997 ; 449–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Rojo MG, Garcia GB, Mateos CP, et al. Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int J Surg Pathol 2006 ; 14 : 285–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Saltz JH. Digital pathology. The big picture. Hum Pathol 2000 ; 31 : 779–780. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Yagi Y, Yoshioka S, Kyusojin H, et al. Ultra high speed whole slide image viewing system. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2012 ; 35 : 65–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ameisen D, Vergier B, Hauchecorne O, et al. Lames virtuelles en ligne en 2007 : une technologie au service de nombreuses applications en pathologie. Ann Pathol 2008 ; 28 : 17–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lahrmann B, Halama N, Westphal K, et al. Robust gridding of TMAs after whole-slide imaging using template matching. Cytometry A 2010 ; 77 : 1169–1176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Treanor D, Jordan-Owers N, Hodrien J, et al. Virtual reality Powerwall versus conventional microscope for viewing pathology slides : an experimental comparison. Histopathology 2009 ; 55 : 294–300. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Roberts N, Magee D, Song Y, et al. Toward routine use of 3D histopathology as a research tool. Am J Pathol 2012 ; 180 : 1835–1842. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, et al. Digital image analysis in pathology : benefits and obligation. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2012 ; 35 : 75–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Huang CH, Veillard A, Roux L, et al. Time-efficient sparse analysis of histopathological whole slide images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2011 ; 35 : 579–591. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schrader T, Schlüns K, Zerbe N, et al. The comparison of scanner properties – the results of the 1st European scanner contest, 2010 June 26. http://tigacenter.bioquant.uni-heidelberg.de/tl_files/tigacenter/workshops/workshop2010/talks/Schrader_Thomas_TIGA_2010_Talk.pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Harris T, Leaven T, Heidger P, et al. Comparison of a virtual microscope laboratory to a regular microscope laboratory for teaching histology. Anat Rec 2001 ; 265 : 10–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Evered A, Dudding N. Accuracy and perceptions of virtual microscopy compared with glass slide microscopy in cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2011 ; 22 : 82–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harnden P, Coleman D, Moss S, et al. Evaluation of the use of digital images for a national prostate core external quality assurance scheme. Histopathology 2011 ; 59 : 703–709. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Walkowski S, Szymas J. Quality evaluation of virtual slides using methods based on comparing common image areas. Diagn Pathol 2011 ; 6 : S14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic DM, et al. Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance : design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol 2006 ; 37 : 322–331. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ameisen D, Bertheau P. Méthode de détection et de quantification du flou dans une image numérique. PCT/FR2011/052951 ; brevet n°1060445 déposé à l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle, le 13 décembre 2010. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ameisen D, Bertheau P. Procédé d’analyse de la qualité d’une lame virtuelle d’un objet. FR 1154038 ; brevet déposé à l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle, le 10 mai 2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zerbe N, Hufnagl P, Schlüns K. Distributed computing in image analysis using open source frameworks and application to image sharpness assessment of histological whole slide images. Diagn Pathol 2011 ; 6 : S16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. IHE.net Home (2011 December 16). http://www.ihe.net/ [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniel C, García Rojo M, Bourquard K, et al. Standards to support information systems integration in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009 ; 133 : 1841–1849. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Daniel C, Rojo MG, Klossa J, et al. Standardizing the use of whole slide images in digital pathology. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2011 ; 35 : 496–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Bozec C Le, Henin D, Fabiani B, et al. Refining DICOM for pathology-progress from the IHE and DICOM pathology working groups. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007 ; 129 : 434–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. CI-SIS : Interopérabilité sémantique : composants téléchargeables. esante.gouv.fr, le portail de l’ASIP Santé (2011 December 16) ; http://esante.gouv.fr/referentiels/interoperabilite/ci-sis-interoperabilite-semantique-composants-telechargeables. [Google Scholar]
  25. Daniel C, García Rojo M, Bourquard K, et al. Standards to support information systems integration in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009 ; 133 : 1841–1849. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kussaibi H, Macary F, Kennedy M, et al. HL7 CDA implementation guide for structured anatomic pathology reports methodology and tools. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010 ; 160 : 289–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, et al. Above the clouds : a Berkeley view of cloud computing. EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2009–28, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boudry C. Biologie/médecine 2.0 : état des lieux. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 653–658. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Bertheau P, Chabouis A, Fabiani B, et al. Télépathologie par lames virtuelles ou le diagnostic anatomo-pathologique en réseau numérique. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 983–985. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Vergier B, Guettier C. L’utilisation des lames virtuelles en pédagogie. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 986–989. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Janin A, Legrès L, Lebœuf C, et al. Les lames virtuelles en recherche expérimentale et en recherche clinique. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 990–992. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Brousset P, Delsol G. Émergence d’une spécialité médicale nouvelle : la pathologie. Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 651–655. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.