ArticleJournal of digital imaging2012
Towards a repository for standardized medical image and signal case data annotated with ground truth.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The adoption of deep learning interpretability techniques on diabetic retinopathy analysis: a review.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Review
- Ten simple rules for annotating sequencing experiments.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Cloud-Based NoSQL Open Database of Pulmonary Nodules for Computer-Aided Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Reproducible Research.Journal of digital imaging · 2016Article
- Isfahan MISP Dataset.Journal of medical signals and sensorsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validation of medical signal and image processing systems requires quality-assured, representative and generally acknowledged databases accompanied by appropriate reference (ground truth) and clinical metadata, which are composed laboriously for each project and are not shared with the scientific community. In our vision, such data will be stored centrally in an open repository. We propose an architecture for a standardized case data and ground truth information repository supporting the evaluation and analysis of computer-aided diagnosis based on (a) the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS) provided by the NASA Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (ISO 14721:2003), (b) the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Element Set (ISO 15836:2009), (c) the Open Archive Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, and (d) the Image Retrieval in Medical Applications (IRMA) framework. In our implementation, a portal bunches all of the functionalities that are needed for data submission and retrieval. The complete life cycle of the data (define, create, store, sustain, share, use, and improve) is managed. Sophisticated search tools make it easier to use the datasets, which may be merged from different providers. An integrated history record guarantees reproducibility. A standardized creation report is generated with a permanent digital object identifier. This creation report must be referenced by all of the data users. Peer-reviewed e-publishing of these reports will create a reputation for the data contributors and will form de-facto standards regarding image and signal datasets. Good practice guidelines for validation methodology complement the concept of the case repository. This procedure will increase the comparability of evaluation studies for medical signal and image processing methods and applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.