This document summarizes a presentation on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications in medical devices. It discusses how IoT allows for full autonomy in data capture, event transfer, network connectivity, and interoperability for medical devices. It also notes the European Commission's support for standardization and security to foster IoT development in the EU. Specific medical applications discussed include telemedicine, use of sensors, and automatic processing in areas like sectioning, fixing, and staining of samples.

1. IoT. Internet of the things.
The era of Small Size
slides and 4M microscopes
Prof.Dr.O.Ferrer-Roca.
 XVIII WINTER COURSE 2010.
Tfe. Canary Islands.Spain


2. IoT. Internet of the Things
 Identifying,
scheduling,
controlling & evaluating
devices through Internet.
COW
Computer on wheels
Global infrastructure to link physical &
virtual objects, exploiting data capture
and massive communications.
Object-ID
Ideal for Sensors & Telemedicine applications connected to PoCs
(points of care, points of contact) since their connectivity is based on
federated services & independent applications.

3. IoT in medical devices.

Brings full autonomy in : data
capture, event transfer, network
connectivity & interoperability.

EC proposed on VI-2009 
14 lines to foster in the EU
«Internet of the things».
The essential one is
Standardization & Security.

The EC stressed the priority in private data protection with technologies
such as inteligent straps or sticks (RFID) and give their recomendations
( IP/09/740,IP/09/571)

4. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/index_en.htm
IoT in medical devices

The EC is waching
the IPs addresses
not to run out .
IPv6 is essential

5. IEEE-1073-x
IoT in medical devices.
IEEE-11073.3.2 MIB or Medical Information Bus
PoC –PnP standard
Auto-Tracking
http://www.ieee-isto.org/index.html
Nivel Integración AVERPI
1.Audio
2.Video
3.Equipment
4.Room environment
5.PACS
6.Information Systems

6. http://catai.net/blog//2009/09/patoinformatica-osna-one-step-nucleic-acid-amplification/
IoT in medical devices.
Automatic processing
 Automatic sectioning
 Automatic fixing
 Automatic staining


7. IoT. Internet of the Things

OUTSOURCING pHealth

8. Health Care Quality
Health 2.0
Web 2.0
Health 3.0
Web 3.0
HCQ
HCQ
CLOUD
Health 4.0
Web 4.0
Social, Semantic, Service Web
ISO 13485
ISO27k
Seguridad

9. Health 4.0

10. The situation SSVS & 4M





SSVS technique the slide is digitized
at low microscopic power (4x).
Digitization with a high resolution
camera at the super-optical resolution
Stored in JPEG2000 format
maintaining diagnostic quality of
original slides. The resulting digital
image is 100 times smaller than VS,
easy to transmit and store .
In SSVS the zoom-in and the zoom-out
is handled by software. To focus low
power images is also solved with the
ZF-Zoom Focus (©-Ferrer-Roca)
technique.
Due to chip miniaturization
microscopes can be built on hald-held
devices. This is the case of the 4M or
Multi-Modal Miniature Microscopes
of less than two centimeters of
diameter using CMOS chips but the
forthcoming mobile phones provide
cameras up to 12 megapixels capable
to be used as dermatoscopes or 4M.
http://project.vodafone-us.com/winners-2009-cellscope.html

11. Material & Methods
Images coming from an average
quality Olympus BH-2 microscope
were captured with a high
resolution CCD camera.
 It was an AVT-Oscar F-810C
fireware IEEE1394 camera, with a
CCD 2/3” Sony sensor of 8
Megapixels-Mpx (3288x2470)
producing images of 3272x2469,
12 bits/pixel.
 The monochip was a colour
mosaic (R-G x G-B) with 2x2 pixel
sensitivity. Signal to noise ratio
(SNR) was 36,19dB. Noise floor
of CCD cameras of 12 bits
dynamic range is 2.4x10 -4 ; SNR=
- 10 log10 Fnoise= 36,19dB.


12. PARAMETERS-I
Projection magnification
onChip (PMoC)
 Each field of view (FOV) was
taken through a SPlan 4x
objective (Obj), 0.13 NA
(Numeric Aperture), using a
relay tube lens NFK 2.5x LD of
125 on the MTV-3 tube with a
0.3x lens that produce a total
projection magnification
onChip - PMoC of 3x
( 4*2.5*0.3). Exact
magnification was checked
with a calibration slide of 1 mm
in 10μm marks from Graticules
LTD, England.
 Each region of interest (ROI)
was scanned with a 0.46 NA
SPlan 20x objective at a PMoC
of 15x (20*2.5*0.3).

FOV = 3x
PMoC
ROI = 15x

13. PARAMETERS-II


Overall Magnification (OM) lenses (Obj *Oc)
and the distance (D) over which the image is
projected.
Digital images
The Digital resolution (DR) effective pixel
size (Epx) of the sensor divided by the total
projection magnification onChip. Epx μm /
PMoC. =sampling density.
Visual magnification (VM) through a 10x
wide field ocular (Oc) in a standardized
projection of 250 mm minimum distance for
20/20 eyes, considering the ¼ mm eye
resolution.
FOV scan objective = 40x , ROIs objective= 200x.

Total Screen magnification (SM).
Relationship between the size of Screen pixel
and the CCD pixel= Spx/CCDpx
1:1 zoom = (264μm/2.7μm = 97.77), near 100x.
The digital zoom-in and zoom-out magnification
factors depend of the JPEG2000 tile format.


Useful magnification (UM) ranged from
500*NA up to 1000*NA.

14. RESULTS-1
OBJ.
PMoC
3x
OR
μm
2.12
ST
μm/px
1
RGB-demosaic
μm/px
3
RAW
μm/px
1
RAW-demosaic
μm/px
2
4x
20x
15x
0.55
1/4
1/2
1/5
1/3
40x*
30x
0.29
1/8
1/4
1/10
1/5
60x*
45x
0.29
1/8
1/5
1/15
1/9
100x*
75x
0.20
1 /12
1/10
1/30
1/15
DIGITAL RESOLUTION. Compared original demosaicing RGB 8:1 images, with
black and white original RAW images and demosaicing 4:1color displayed RAW
images.
 PMoC= Projection Magnification on the Chip. OR= Microscopic Optical resolution.
 ST= Sampling density according to Shannon theory.
 *60x and 100x are not tested in the paper. 40x is tested but not used in the SSVS.


15. RESULTS-2
Obj(NA)
VM
Low UM
500xNA
High UM
1000xNA
4 x(0.13).
40x
65x
130x
20x(0.46).
200x
250x
40x(0.95)*
400x
60x(0.95)*
100x(1.4)*
CCD
PMoC
Zoom-out
(fingerprint)
1:1
Zoomin
3x
9x
294x
587x
460x
15x
46x
1467x
2933x
475x
950x
30x
92x
2933x
5800x
600x
475x
950x
45x
nt
nt
nt
1000x
700x
1400x
75x
nt
nt
nt
Analog Visual & Useful magnification (in grey) versus digital onChip &
onScreen magnification (in white) RAW demosaicing images.
 VM=Visual magnification; UM= Useful magnification range.

(*)40x included for comparison purposes not used in SSVS. (nt)= not tested.


16. RESULTS-3

Non linear ACE or adaptive contrast enhancement curve. Acting as
an inverse normalized optical modulation transfer function (MTF,
see http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/optics/mtfintro.html )
correcting optical coherence factor (OCF) or relationship between
NA of detector (CCD) and the objective γ= NAccd/NAobj.

17. RESULTS-3
Figure 1. C. FOV onScreen Zoomin SM 640x. System: OR=2.12 μm
and DR=3 μm /px (one third of the
Shannon theory).
 D. ROI onScreen . Zoom-in SM
3200x showing a tridimensional
papillary structure. System: OR=
0.55μm OR and DR= 1 μm /2px
(half of the Shannon theory).

Figure 2. ROI onScreen SSVSRAW images. System: OR=0.55μm
and DR=1 μm /3px (near to
Shannon sampling theory). The rule
on the top right is 10 μm.
 A- ROI onScreen . Zoom-in of the
cytology of figure 1. SM 2933x. On
the left corner SM 8799x showing
the pixelated nuclear details of the
empty magnification.
 B. ROI onScreen . Zoom-in of the
surgical specimen of figure 2. SM
2933x.

C- SSVS-FOV-RGB. SM 640x
A-SSVS-ROI-RAW. SM:2933x
D- SSVS-ROI-RGB. SM 3200x
B- SSVS-ROI-RAW.SM:2933x

18. CONCLUSIONS
1. Projection magnification onChip (PMoC) is essential to
evaluate the system sampling capabilities, the so-called
DR o digital resolution that influenced visibility and digital
image quality with or without computer assisted
techniques.
2. Differences OnScreen of RAW /RGB images were related
to higher DR and the contrast enhancement & light
gathering provided by superresolution algorithm on the
RAW images.
3. That SSVS are ideal for hand-held microscopes, 4M or
even mobile phones with ad-on capture systems

19. ION
NT
OU T E
KY
A N UR A T
T H YO
 catai@teide.net
R
FO
 www.catai.net/blog

www.teide.net/catai