{
  "id": 159783,
  "title": "Can a pathologist detect gleasons or isup to tissue with lower resolution (1/16)?",
  "url": "/competitions/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment/discussion/159783",
  "author_name": "Salman",
  "post_date": "2020-06-18T17:15:09.824000",
  "votes": 9,
  "comment_count": 2,
  "views": 0,
  "content": "<p>Can a pathologist detect gleasons or isup to tissue with lower resolution (1/16)?</p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": 892145,
      "postDate": "2020-06-18T17:15:09.823Z",
      "content": "<p>Can a pathologist detect gleasons or isup to tissue with lower resolution (1/16)?</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Can a pathologist detect gleasons or isup to tissue with lower resolution (1/16)?",
      "votes": 9
    },
    {
      "id": 892895,
      "postDate": "2020-06-19T08:35:57.710Z",
      "content": "<p>I doubt anyone has formally studied this question, but I am pretty sure that it would be difficult with x16 downsampling (pixel size of ~8 µm for the challenge images). As <a href=\"/wouterbulten\">@wouterbulten</a> pointed out, they typically initially look at the slide with low magnification and then examine areas of interest more closely with higher magnification.</p>\n\n<p>If you'd put pathologists in a guinea pig experiment with x16 downsampled images, who knows how accurate they could get, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be happy doing it! Quite often you even hear criticism about the image quality of the full resolution images when compared to a physical microscope.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "I doubt anyone has formally studied this question, but I am pretty sure that it would be difficult with x16 downsampling (pixel size of ~8 µm for the challenge images). As @wouterbulten pointed out, they typically initially look at the slide with low magnification and then examine areas of interest more closely with higher magnification.\n\nIf you'd put pathologists in a guinea pig experiment with x16 downsampled images, who knows how accurate they could get, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be happy doing it! Quite often you even hear criticism about the image quality of the full resolution images when compared to a physical microscope.",
      "votes": 4
    },
    {
      "id": 892874,
      "postDate": "2020-06-19T08:19:27.633Z",
      "content": "<p>Usually, pathologists use a combination of high and low magnification to determine the Gleason score. In our experiments, we always made sure that pathologists had access to a resolution with a pixel spacing of +/- 0.5 (the lowest level that is available in this competition).</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Usually, pathologists use a combination of high and low magnification to determine the Gleason score. In our experiments, we always made sure that pathologists had access to a resolution with a pixel spacing of +/- 0.5 (the lowest level that is available in this competition).",
      "votes": 4
    }
  ],
  "comments": [
    {
      "id": 892895,
      "author_name": "Kimmo Kartasalo",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2020-06-19T08:35:57.710000",
      "content": "<p>I doubt anyone has formally studied this question, but I am pretty sure that it would be difficult with x16 downsampling (pixel size of ~8 µm for the challenge images). As <a href=\"/wouterbulten\">@wouterbulten</a> pointed out, they typically initially look at the slide with low magnification and then examine areas of interest more closely with higher magnification.</p>\n\n<p>If you'd put pathologists in a guinea pig experiment with x16 downsampled images, who knows how accurate they could get, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be happy doing it! Quite often you even hear criticism about the image quality of the full resolution images when compared to a physical microscope.</p>",
      "votes": 4,
      "replies": []
    },
    {
      "id": 892874,
      "author_name": "Wouter Bulten",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2020-06-19T08:19:27.633000",
      "content": "<p>Usually, pathologists use a combination of high and low magnification to determine the Gleason score. In our experiments, we always made sure that pathologists had access to a resolution with a pixel spacing of +/- 0.5 (the lowest level that is available in this competition).</p>",
      "votes": 4,
      "replies": []
    }
  ],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "892145": "Can a pathologist detect gleasons or isup to tissue with lower resolution (1/16)?",
    "892895": "I doubt anyone has formally studied this question, but I am pretty sure that it would be difficult with x16 downsampling (pixel size of ~8 µm for the challenge images). As @wouterbulten pointed out, they typically initially look at the slide with low magnification and then examine areas of interest more closely with higher magnification.\n\nIf you'd put pathologists in a guinea pig experiment with x16 downsampled images, who knows how accurate they could get, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be happy doing it! Quite often you even hear criticism about the image quality of the full resolution images when compared to a physical microscope.",
    "892874": "Usually, pathologists use a combination of high and low magnification to determine the Gleason score. In our experiments, we always made sure that pathologists had access to a resolution with a pixel spacing of +/- 0.5 (the lowest level that is available in this competition)."
  }
}