ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019
Call for Data Standardization: Lessons Learned and Recommendations in an Imaging Study.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI for scientific discovery is a social problem.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Radiomics-based model for predicting neoadjuvant therapy response in esophageal cancer: Limitations and suggestions.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Data Quality Assurance in Cancer Imaging Repositories.Cancers · 2025Article
- Semantic enrichment of Pomeranian health study data using LOINC and WHO-FIC terminology mapping principles.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Datagraphy: toward a systematic approach to dataset discovery.GigaScience · 2025Article
- A DICOM-based standard for quantitative physical rehabilitation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Advancing Medical Imaging Research Through Standardization: The Path to Rapid Development, Rigorous Validation, and Robust Reproducibility.Investigative radiology · 2025Review
- Detailed Image Data Quality and Cleaning Practices for Artificial Intelligence Tools for Breast Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- A comprehensive patient-specific prediction model for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis progression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Standardizing digital biobanks: integrating imaging, genomic, and clinical data for precision medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Demographic variations and time to initiation of adjunct treatment following surgical resection of anaplastic astrocytoma in the United States: a National Cancer Database analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Identifying Datasets for Cross-Study Analysis in dbGaP using PhenX.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of the Radiology Common Data Model (R-CDM) for the International Standardization of Medical Imaging Data.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- Innovation in Informatics to Improve Clinical Care and Drug Accessibility for Rare Diseases in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Technical Note: MRQy - An open-source tool for quality control of MR imaging data.Medical physics · 2020Article
- [Development of an Optimized Deep Learning Model for Medical Imaging].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020Review
- Linked Entity Attribute Pair (LEAP): A Harmonization Framework for Data Pooling.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Article
- From severity scoring to predictive analytics: the emerging role of AI in neurosurgery.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeData sharing creates potential cost savings, supports data aggregation, and facilitates reproducibility to ensure quality research; however, data from heterogeneous systems require retrospective harmonization. This is a major hurdle for researchers who seek to leverage existing data. Efforts focused on strategies for data interoperability largely center around the use of standards but ignore the problems of competing standards and the value of existing data. Interoperability remains reliant on retrospective harmonization. Approaches to reduce this burden are needed.
methodsThe Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) is an example of an imaging repository that accepts data from a diversity of sources. It contains medical images from investigators worldwide and substantial nonimage data. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standards enable querying across images, but TCIA does not enforce other standards for describing nonimage supporting data, such as treatment details and patient outcomes. In this study, we used 9 TCIA lung and brain nonimage files containing 659 fields to explore retrospective harmonization for cross-study query and aggregation. It took 329.5 hours, or 2.3 months, extended over 6 months to identify 41 overlapping fields in 3 or more files and transform 31 of them. We used the Genomic Data Commons (GDC) data elements as the target standards for harmonization.
resultsWe characterized the issues and have developed recommendations for reducing the burden of retrospective harmonization. Once we harmonized the data, we also developed a Web tool to easily explore harmonized collections.
conclusionWhile prospective use of standards can support interoperability, there are issues that complicate this goal. Our work recognizes and reveals retrospective harmonization issues when trying to reuse existing data and recommends national infrastructure to address these issues.
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.