Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31834820›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Call for Data Standardization: Lessons Learned and Recommendations in an Imaging Study.

Amrita Basu, Denise Warzel, Aras Eftekhari, Justin S Kirby, John Freymann, Janice Knable, Ashish Sharma, Paula Jacobs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI for scientific discovery is a social problem.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A DICOM-based standard for quantitative physical rehabilitation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A comprehensive patient-specific prediction model for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis progression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amrita BasuUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Denise WarzelNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Aras EftekhariAttain, McLean, VA.
Justin S KirbyFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Rockville, MD.
John FreymannFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Rockville, MD.
Janice KnableScience Applications International Corporation, Reston, VA.
Ashish SharmaEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Paula JacobsNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

TCIA Sustainment and Scalability - Platforms for Quantitative Imaging Informatics in Precision MedicineU24CA215109 · NCI · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI BANERJEE, IMON, PRIOR, FRED WILLIAM · 2017 to 2021
$8.5M
Resources for development and validation of Radiomic analyses & Adaptive TherapyU01CA187013 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PRIOR, FRED WILLIAM, SHARMA, ASHISH · 2014 to 2018
$2.6M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS U01 CA187013NCI NIH HHS U24 CA215109
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualData CurationGuidelines as TopicHealth Information InteroperabilityHumansLung NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31834820
PMCPMC6939740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.