English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We have previously developed a portable Pocket Colposcope for cervical cancer screening in resource-limited settings. In this manuscript we report two different strategies (cross-polarization and an integrated reflector) to improve image contrast levels achieved with the Pocket Colposcope and evaluate the merits of each strategy compared to a standard-of-care digital colposcope. The desired outcomes included reduced specular reflection (glare), increased illumination beam pattern uniformity, and reduced electrical power budget. In addition, anti-fogging and waterproofing features were incorporated to prevent the Pocket Colposcope from fogging in the vaginal canal and to enable rapid disinfection by submersion in chemical agents.    Methods  Cross-polarization (Generation 3 Pocket Colposcope) and a new reflector design (Generation 4 Pocket Colposcope) were used to reduce glare and improve contrast. The reflector design (including the angle and height of the reflector sidewalls) was optimized through ray-tracing simulations. Both systems were characterized with a series of bench tests to assess specular reflection, beam pattern uniformity, and image contrast. A pilot clinical study was conducted to compare the Generation 3 and 4 Pocket Colposcopes to a standard-of-care colposcope (Leisegang Optik 2). Specifically, paired images of cervices were collected from the standard-of-care colposcope and either the Generation 3 (n = 24 patients) or the Generation 4 (n = 32 patients) Pocket Colposcopes. The paired images were blinded by device, randomized, and sent to an expert physician who provided a diagnosis for each image. Corresponding pathology was obtained for all image pairs. The primary outcome measures were the level of agreement (%) and   κ   ( kappa)  statistic between the standard-of-care colposcope and each Pocket Colposcope (Generation 3 and Generation 4).    Results  Both generations of Pocket Colposcope had significantly higher image contrast when compared to the standard-of-care colposcope. The addition of anti-fog and waterproofing features to the Generation 3 and 4 Pocket Colposcope did not impact image quality based on qualitative and quantitative metrics. The level of agreement between the Generation 3 Pocket Colposcope and the standard-of-care colposcope was 75.0% ( kappa  = 0.4000, p = 0.0028, n = 24). This closely matched the level of agreement between the Generation 4 Pocket Colposcope and the standard-of-care colposcope which was also 75.0% ( kappa  = 0.4941, p = 0.0024, n = 32).    Conclusion  Our results indicate that the Generation 3 and 4 Pocket Colposcopes perform comparably to the standard-of-care colposcope, with the added benefit of being low-cost and waterproof, which is ideal for use in resource-limited settings. Additionally, the reflector significantly reduces the electrical requirements of the Generation 4 Pocket Colposcope enhancing portability without altering performance compared to the Generation 3 system.

An integrated strategy for improving contrast, durability, and portability of a Pocket Colposcope for cervical cancer screening and diagnosis