Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content

Kristine Alpi, James C. Brown, Jennifer A. Neel, Carol B. Grindem, Keith E. Linder, James B. Harper

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists. Methods: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness. Results: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n=215). Conclusions: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-23
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the Medical Library Association
Volume104
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Color
Technology
pathology
Clinical Pathology
Radiology
Interlibrary Loans
Pathology
loan
Internship and Residency
ranking
Research

Keywords

  • Image compression
  • Image enhancement
  • Interlibrary loans
  • Pathology
  • Photographs
  • Radiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content. / Alpi, Kristine; Brown, James C.; Neel, Jennifer A.; Grindem, Carol B.; Linder, Keith E.; Harper, James B.

In: Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 104, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 15-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Alpi, Kristine ; Brown, James C. ; Neel, Jennifer A. ; Grindem, Carol B. ; Linder, Keith E. ; Harper, James B. / Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content. In: Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2016 ; Vol. 104, No. 1. pp. 15-23.
@article{e7fbb482f2f445c8b676552dca13f326,
title = "Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content",
abstract = "Objective: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists. Methods: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness. Results: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48{\%}) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4{\%}) and conversions (10{\%}) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53{\%} for color, to 74{\%} for grayscale, to 97{\%} for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41{\%} were said to be unacceptable, 97{\%} of B&W, 66{\%} of grayscale, 41{\%} of color, and 1{\%} of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67{\%} of rankings (n=215). Conclusions: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12{\%}) or B&W (less than 1{\%}). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52{\%}. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.",
keywords = "Image compression, Image enhancement, Interlibrary loans, Pathology, Photographs, Radiology",
author = "Kristine Alpi and Brown, {James C.} and Neel, {Jennifer A.} and Grindem, {Carol B.} and Linder, {Keith E.} and Harper, {James B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "15--23",
journal = "Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA",
issn = "1536-5050",
publisher = "Medical Library Association",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content

AU - Alpi, Kristine

AU - Brown, James C.

AU - Neel, Jennifer A.

AU - Grindem, Carol B.

AU - Linder, Keith E.

AU - Harper, James B.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Objective: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists. Methods: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness. Results: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n=215). Conclusions: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.

AB - Objective: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists. Methods: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals. With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness. Results: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n=405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n=215). Conclusions: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.

KW - Image compression

KW - Image enhancement

KW - Interlibrary loans

KW - Pathology

KW - Photographs

KW - Radiology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955278757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955278757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.003

DO - 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 26807048

AN - SCOPUS:84955278757

VL - 104

SP - 15

EP - 23

JO - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

JF - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

SN - 1536-5050

IS - 1

ER -