Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35773546›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2022

Position of the AI for Health Imaging (AI4HI) network on metadata models for imaging biobanks.

Haridimos Kondylakis, Esther Ciarrocchi, Leonor Cerda-Alberich, Ioanna Chouvarda, Lauren A Fromont, Jose Manuel Garcia-Aznar, Varvara Kalokyri, Alexandra Kosvyra, Dawn Walker, Guang Yang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. New Challenges for Anatomists in the Era of Omics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

12 authors.

Haridimos KondylakisFORTH-ICS, Heraklion, Greece.
Esther CiarrocchiDepartment of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. esther.ciarrocchi@unipi.it.ORCID 0000-0003-3548-7851
Leonor Cerda-AlberichBiomedical Imaging Research Group, La Fe Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Ioanna ChouvardaAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Lauren A FromontCentre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain.
Jose Manuel Garcia-AznarUniversity of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Varvara KalokyriDepartment of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alexandra KosvyraAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Dawn WalkerDepartment of Computer Science and Insigneo Institute of in silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Guang YangNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Emanuele NeriDepartment of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
the AI4HealthImaging Working Group on metadata models**

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V023799/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A huge amount of imaging data is becoming available worldwide and an incredible range of possible improvements can be provided by artificial intelligence algorithms in clinical care for diagnosis and decision support. In this context, it has become essential to properly manage and handle these medical images and to define which metadata have to be considered, in order for the images to provide their full potential. Metadata are additional data associated with the images, which provide a complete description of the image acquisition, curation, analysis, and of the relevant clinical variables associated with the images. Currently, several data models are available to describe one or more subcategories of metadata, but a unique, common, and standard data model capable of fully representing the heterogeneity of medical metadata has not been yet developed. This paper reports the state of the art on metadata models for medical imaging, the current limitations and further developments, and describes the strategy adopted by the Horizon 2020 "AI for Health Imaging" projects, which are all dedicated to the creation of imaging biobanks.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMetadataAlgorithmsBiological Specimen BanksDiagnostic ImagingArtificial intelligenceDiagnostic imagingMetadataRadiation therapyRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID35773546
PMCPMC9247122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.