{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025108643167551906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00386286817962337, 'mean_word_length': 5.619808306709265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using Focus Stacking in Anatomical Imaging: Does it Make a Difference?

Human anatomy education relies heavily on the use of high‐quality images of cadaveric dissections for student reference. Despite continual advances in the available camera equipment for digital photography, depth of field remains a limitation when photographing anatomical specimens. To circumvent this issue, some anatomists use focus stacking algorithms to enhance depth of field in anatomical images. Focus stacking is a commonly used technique in microscopy whereby image processing software is used to fuse multiple digital images with different focal planes to create a single image with an extended depth of focus. This procedure aims to improve the quality of images used in anatomical education; however, objective evaluation of image quality is notoriously difficult. This is largely due to an inability to code algorithms that adequately parallel the human visual system (HVS). For this reason, subjective assessment has remained the gold standard for image quality evaluation. The goal of this study was to determine if focus stacked images were superior to non‐focus stacked images in subjective image quality. For this comparison, focus stacked cadaveric images were paired with identical non‐focus stacked controls (25 focus stacked, 25 non‐focus stacked) and analyzed for image quality by human subjects. Participants ranked the images on a slider labelled with five adjectives: “Bad”, “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good”, and “Excellent”, and scores were converted to integers between 1–100 for analysis. Statistical analysis is ongoing; however, preliminary results indicate that focus stacked images typically received higher ratings of quality than non‐focus stacked images. Ultimately, the purpose of capturing cadaveric images is to include them in educational material directed toward human anatomy students. Therefore, a difference between perceived image quality may have important implications for the creation of high quality educational material in human anatomy and student learning.