When I worked as a co-op for a local company that makes digital medical imaging equipment, they brought me in on a quick test with ultra-high-resolution gray-scale monitors. It was a "spot the difference" type test, to see how small of a difference I could see. I was amazed at the resolution of the monitor though.
When I worked as a co-op for a local company that makes digital medical imaging equipment, they brought me in on a quick test with ultra-high-resolution gray-scale monitors. It was a "spot the difference" type test, to see how small of a difference I could see. I was amazed at the resolution of the monitor though.
RadiclDreamer
Diamond Member
- Aug 8, 2004
- 8,622
- 40
- 91
I work in healthcare and buy "medical grade" monitors all the time. It basically has to do with image quality and certifying that the display outputs correctly so that a study is not misread due to some sort of artifact etc. They are indeed expensive, the dome 10mp monitors we are looking at are 18k each. Even these have to be calibrated periodically to be allowed to be used in a clinical scenario.
A modern $300 monitor is likely 2x as good as $30,000 monitor from 3-4 years ago. Best to spend that extra money on hiring good doctors.
The two pieces of equipment I have seen that get called medical grade, and a third one it was at a lower grade called "food grade", was that all could be washed down with a high pressure hose and still work. Rather a important issue if wanting to be able to sterilize a room.
Pretty sure the $300 cheap version will not have that ability.
Pretty sure the $300 cheap version will not have that ability.
60601 certification isn't about a warranty at all -its much much more than that; its about being able to be shocked hard and auto recover, minimizing the radio frequencies emitted by the device, being immune to a set of standard electrical tests, minimizing any and all leakage currents, establishing the isolation barrier, etc. etc. In this hospital envrionment the patient is #1, so the amount of protection you have to build in in quite a bit! Lets not start thinking about the battery of mechanical tests that the the standard doesn't cover.
Medical grade means;
1. DICOM calibration. The conventional gamma curve on CRTs and LCDs is uneven. There is very little difference between dark shades, meaning it can take 2 or 3 pixel values to produce a visible difference; at the same time between light shades, the difference is exaggerated, meaning that you could theoretically see a difference between 0.5 pixel values. The DICOM calibration was specifically designed with reference to the human eye, so that each pixel value change gives an equivalent amount of visibility all the way across the brightness range.
As a result of this calibration, DICOM monitors have very unsatisfactory performance with images intended for display on general-purpose monitors. Colors are washed-out and images are displayed with low contrast and appear muddy and dark.
2. Meets specific levels of performance for luminance and contrast. Typically, diagnosis grade medical monitors (as opposed to general purpose medical monitors) should be able to achieve 500 cd/m2 brightness when calibrated. 600-1000 cd/m2 for mammogram viewing.
3. There are strict specification for brightness uniformity (often called backlight bleeding in the lay press). Many medical grade monitors have uniformity correction, sometimes on a per-pixel basis. Older ones tended to use complex backlight designs to maintain uniformity (e.g. oversized CCFL tubes that go 1 inch beyond the LCD, so that tube end blackening doesn't degrade the uniformity; or individually temperature stabilised backlight elements with extra thick light diffuser layers)
4. Specific levels of resolution. X-ray medical images are typically 3-6 megapixels. To permit good productivity, the monitor needs to have at least that number of pixels. Mammogram images are typically 5-20 megapixels, and >4k resolution monitors are strongly recommended for mammogram viewing. CT images are typically 512x512, and MRI are rarely higher than 320x256. The demands for viewing the latter types of image are significantly reduced.
--
The overall degree of compliance that you need depends on what it is that you wish to do.
If you just need images displayed together with a written opinion from a trained radiologist, then you don't even need a medical grade display at all. However, a basic level of DICOM calibration (+/- 5%) is recommended so that the image the viewer sees is displayed similarly to who the original interpreter viewed the image.
Similarly, certain types of research work don't need medical-grade displays.
For the same reason, you don't strictly need 500 cd/m2 luminance. Certain types of medical image (e.g. CT/MRI/Ultrasound/PET/SPECT) have a limited range of brightnesses due to the process of creating the image, so many users would regard 250 cd/m2 as perfectly acceptable. X-ray or mammogram images need very high brightness due to the huge range of pixel values, and contrasts within the image, and the fact that you are looking for single pixel abnormalities in a very high-res image. Additionally, sometimes displays have to be installed in brightly lit areas, e.g. operating rooms, in this case, a super bright backlight is needed to ensure that the surgeon is able to see the details after staring at a brightly lit operating site.
--
Yes. You CAN get performance adequate for most medical use from a stock monitor, providing that it is calibrated to DICOM specifications.
The difficulty is that you need HARDWARE calibration - taking an 8 bit grey scale image and then using an 8-bit LUT in the GPU, is worthless. The image will be too degraded as the DICOM curve and the conventional 2.2 gamma curve are too different.
For example, a 2560x1440 monitor with hardware calibration could meet most of the medical specifications (with the exception of brightness, and without specific control of uniformity - but for a new monitor, it should be adequate). Indeed, there are companies that sell commercial grade monitors plus a calibration tool. The Dell U3014 and Dell U2713H are available with calibration software in an FDA approved package from certain vendors.
1. DICOM calibration. The conventional gamma curve on CRTs and LCDs is uneven. There is very little difference between dark shades, meaning it can take 2 or 3 pixel values to produce a visible difference; at the same time between light shades, the difference is exaggerated, meaning that you could theoretically see a difference between 0.5 pixel values. The DICOM calibration was specifically designed with reference to the human eye, so that each pixel value change gives an equivalent amount of visibility all the way across the brightness range.
As a result of this calibration, DICOM monitors have very unsatisfactory performance with images intended for display on general-purpose monitors. Colors are washed-out and images are displayed with low contrast and appear muddy and dark.
2. Meets specific levels of performance for luminance and contrast. Typically, diagnosis grade medical monitors (as opposed to general purpose medical monitors) should be able to achieve 500 cd/m2 brightness when calibrated. 600-1000 cd/m2 for mammogram viewing.
3. There are strict specification for brightness uniformity (often called backlight bleeding in the lay press). Many medical grade monitors have uniformity correction, sometimes on a per-pixel basis. Older ones tended to use complex backlight designs to maintain uniformity (e.g. oversized CCFL tubes that go 1 inch beyond the LCD, so that tube end blackening doesn't degrade the uniformity; or individually temperature stabilised backlight elements with extra thick light diffuser layers)
4. Specific levels of resolution. X-ray medical images are typically 3-6 megapixels. To permit good productivity, the monitor needs to have at least that number of pixels. Mammogram images are typically 5-20 megapixels, and >4k resolution monitors are strongly recommended for mammogram viewing. CT images are typically 512x512, and MRI are rarely higher than 320x256. The demands for viewing the latter types of image are significantly reduced.
--
The overall degree of compliance that you need depends on what it is that you wish to do.
If you just need images displayed together with a written opinion from a trained radiologist, then you don't even need a medical grade display at all. However, a basic level of DICOM calibration (+/- 5%) is recommended so that the image the viewer sees is displayed similarly to who the original interpreter viewed the image.
Similarly, certain types of research work don't need medical-grade displays.
For the same reason, you don't strictly need 500 cd/m2 luminance. Certain types of medical image (e.g. CT/MRI/Ultrasound/PET/SPECT) have a limited range of brightnesses due to the process of creating the image, so many users would regard 250 cd/m2 as perfectly acceptable. X-ray or mammogram images need very high brightness due to the huge range of pixel values, and contrasts within the image, and the fact that you are looking for single pixel abnormalities in a very high-res image. Additionally, sometimes displays have to be installed in brightly lit areas, e.g. operating rooms, in this case, a super bright backlight is needed to ensure that the surgeon is able to see the details after staring at a brightly lit operating site.
--
Yes. You CAN get performance adequate for most medical use from a stock monitor, providing that it is calibrated to DICOM specifications.
The difficulty is that you need HARDWARE calibration - taking an 8 bit grey scale image and then using an 8-bit LUT in the GPU, is worthless. The image will be too degraded as the DICOM curve and the conventional 2.2 gamma curve are too different.
For example, a 2560x1440 monitor with hardware calibration could meet most of the medical specifications (with the exception of brightness, and without specific control of uniformity - but for a new monitor, it should be adequate). Indeed, there are companies that sell commercial grade monitors plus a calibration tool. The Dell U3014 and Dell U2713H are available with calibration software in an FDA approved package from certain vendors.
Last edited:
This, I've read, is a big deal--no possibility of sparks, etc. around oxygen and so on.
Yeah, I don't remember what exactly I responded to, but I just wanted to point out that the price difference isn't necessarily about reliability or component quality. What you say is true, but it doesn't necessarily add up to a more reliable monitor by any stretch.
50% of it is that all the medical requirements make it a niche product. Sad thing is, it's kinda silly to require a lot of these features in high-end diagnostic quality monitors, since most of them sit in the back of a dark office somewhere, never making it anywhere near a patient or other medical equipment.
Great info on the image display requirements for the medical device monitors... is this information from IEC 62563-1, or is there a particular standard in the 60601 family that defines this?
You're looking at law of diminishing returns to get a product that is more or less specifically designed for certain medical practices. But when you need it, you need it. The liability point brought up earlier was good, but these specifically designed monitors go beyond that and can be of help to doctors in order to provide better and more accurate diagnoses and treatment.
The monitors I've worked with in hospitals (2 years ago) were at least several thousand dollars each. They were somewhere in the 22-27" range...I can't remember exactly. About 3 inches thick (BIG monitors). Built like tanks. Very high resolution...close to, if not, 4K. Great viewing angles and screen uniformity. Color accuracy and contrast seemed good, but I was only staring at a barebones Windows XP desktop and some X-rays. Overall, these were high quality, extremely well-built monitors.
Put simply...these monitors looked amazing. Sure, they probably had horrible pixel response time and high input lag, but THESE ARE NOT GAMING MONITORS. The monitors I worked with were primarily used in dark offices for X-ray viewing. While that might not seem like much, seeing X-rays on these monitors left me no questions in my mind as to why they used such expensive monitors.
It's amazing how many people on here are honestly trying to compare medical-grade monitors to $200-300 consumer monitors. And even someone with very little experience (like me) with medical grade monitors can easily tell how naive and ignorant these comparisons are.
You're dealing with human health, well being, and lives here. As good as a deal as they are for consumers, why would you think a $300 Korean monitor would be an adequate replacement? (Do note that I did not say the medical-grade monitors were worth how much they cost...but there is good reason why they're picked over other monitors)
The monitors I've worked with in hospitals (2 years ago) were at least several thousand dollars each. They were somewhere in the 22-27" range...I can't remember exactly. About 3 inches thick (BIG monitors). Built like tanks. Very high resolution...close to, if not, 4K. Great viewing angles and screen uniformity. Color accuracy and contrast seemed good, but I was only staring at a barebones Windows XP desktop and some X-rays. Overall, these were high quality, extremely well-built monitors.
Put simply...these monitors looked amazing. Sure, they probably had horrible pixel response time and high input lag, but THESE ARE NOT GAMING MONITORS. The monitors I worked with were primarily used in dark offices for X-ray viewing. While that might not seem like much, seeing X-rays on these monitors left me no questions in my mind as to why they used such expensive monitors.
It's amazing how many people on here are honestly trying to compare medical-grade monitors to $200-300 consumer monitors. And even someone with very little experience (like me) with medical grade monitors can easily tell how naive and ignorant these comparisons are.
You're dealing with human health, well being, and lives here. As good as a deal as they are for consumers, why would you think a $300 Korean monitor would be an adequate replacement? (Do note that I did not say the medical-grade monitors were worth how much they cost...but there is good reason why they're picked over other monitors)
Last edited:
Black Octagon
Golden Member
- Dec 10, 2012
- 1,410
- 2
- 81
Looks like an interesting read but the mobile version of that page is being me.
OP, monitors sold specifically as 'medical grade' might be rare for one very simple reason: The mere claim 'medical' might take the screen out of the consumer goods category and into the highly regulated world of medical devices. This comes with a host of time consuming and expensive pre-market approval public obligations that would drive the screen's price up and, incidentally, move it from the standard marketplace and into the world of public procurement and government reimbursement.
OP, monitors sold specifically as 'medical grade' might be rare for one very simple reason: The mere claim 'medical' might take the screen out of the consumer goods category and into the highly regulated world of medical devices. This comes with a host of time consuming and expensive pre-market approval public obligations that would drive the screen's price up and, incidentally, move it from the standard marketplace and into the world of public procurement and government reimbursement.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter