ArticleMedical image analysis2016
From computer-assisted intervention research to clinical impact: The need for a holistic approach.
Article in Medical image analysis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical device regulatory challenges in the UK are affecting innovation and its potential benefits.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2023Article
- SnappySonic: An Ultrasound Acquisition Replay Simulator.Journal of open research software · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The early days of the field of medical image computing (MIC) and computer-assisted intervention (CAI), when publishing a strong self-contained methodological algorithm was enough to produce impact, are over. As a community, we now have substantial responsibility to translate our scientific progresses into improved patient care. In the field of computer-assisted interventions, the emphasis is also shifting from the mere use of well-known established imaging modalities and position trackers to the design and combination of innovative sensing, elaborate computational models and fine-grained clinical workflow analysis to create devices with unprecedented capabilities. The barriers to translating such devices in the complex and understandably heavily regulated surgical and interventional environment can seem daunting. Whether we leave the translation task mostly to our industrial partners or welcome, as researchers, an important share of it is up to us. We argue that embracing the complexity of surgical and interventional sciences is mandatory to the evolution of the field. Being able to do so requires large-scale infrastructure and a critical mass of expertise that very few research centres have. In this paper, we emphasise the need for a holistic approach to computer-assisted interventions where clinical, scientific, engineering and regulatory expertise are combined as a means of moving towards clinical impact. To ensure that the breadth of infrastructure and expertise required for translational computer-assisted intervention research does not lead to a situation where the field advances only thanks to a handful of exceptionally large research centres, we also advocate that solutions need to be designed to lower the barriers to entry. Inspired by fields such as particle physics and astronomy, we claim that centralised very large innovation centres with state of the art technology and health technology assessment capabilities backed by core support staff and open interoperability standards need to be accessible to the wider computer-assisted intervention research community.
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.