Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of images obtained using four dermoscope imaging devices: An observational study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of images obtained using four dermoscope imaging devices: An observational study
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of images obtained using four dermoscope imaging devices: An observational study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of images obtained using four dermoscope imaging devices: An observational study
2023
Overview
Background In clinical practice, the quality of images may vary depending on the imaging device, and the focus of the dermoscope is on the superficial layer of the lesion. Therefore, it is desirable to have a dermoscopy device that can easily focus on any lesion and clearly show the findings. Objectives We conducted a clinical study to compare dermoscopic images of the same skin tumours obtained using a prototype dermoscopy camera, DZ‐D100 (DD, Casio Computer Co., Ltd.), and three existing dermoscopy imaging devices (Derma9500S®‐GR or DG, Derma Medical Inc.; DELTA 20® T or DT, HEINE Optotechnik; and DermLite Foto II Pro® or DF, DermLite LLC). Methods Dermoscopic images of 117 skin tumours from 94 patients who visited Chiba University Hospital were evaluated by two experts in terms of the focus, and the clarity and presence or absence (the primary endpoint) of seven findings (pigmented lines, shiny white lines, dots/globules, blue‐grey structures, vascular structures, milia‐like cysts and comedo‐like openings). Results No significant differences in the number of cases with each of the seven findings (pigmented lines, shiny white lines, dots/globules, blue‐grey structures, vascular structures, milia‐like cysts and comedo‐like openings) among the four groups were observed. The clarity of focus was significantly better with the DD than with the other three devices (all, p < 0.05). Pigmented lines were significantly clearer with the DD than with the DF and DT (all, p < 0.05). A strong correlation was found between the focus and clarity of pigmented lines/globules, blue‐grey structures and vascular structures (all, p < 0.005). Conclusions DD was less affected by elevated lesions and was considered to be the easiest to focus and recognize brown to black lines and dots/globules. The well‐focused captured images are also expected to be applied to diagnosis by artificial intelligence.
Publisher
Wiley
Subject
