ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Clinical CT Data Infrastructure Provides Partial Support for an Operational Ontology for Radiology.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical imaging data are increasingly used beyond patient care to support research, quality assessment, and artificial intelligence development. These applications require imaging examinations to be represented in ways that enable consistent aggregation across clinical operations to ensure reliable interpretation. In prior work, we introduced an ontology framework, the Operational Ontology for Radiology (OOR), designed to represent the radiology imaging workflow for computed tomography (CT) examinations through entities and relationships. This investigation evaluates the extent to which existing clinical imaging infrastructure can support the implementation of this framework. Using OOR, 156 data properties representing components of the imaging workflow were assessed within the clinical imaging environment at one academic medical center. Each property was classified according to its availability in institutional data systems into four categories: directly available and standardized, indirectly available and standardized, available but not standardized, or not readily available. The distribution of properties across these categories was quantified overall and across ontology classes. Among the evaluated properties, 48.1% were directly available in structured form, 7.1% were indirectly available and standardized, 33.3% required standardization, and 11.5% were not readily available in the systems. Technical acquisition parameters, device information, and patient attributes were most frequently available, while elements related to imaging tasks, contextual workflow attributes, and certain series-level descriptors required standardization or structured representation. These findings demonstrate that a portion of OOR can be supported using clinical data infrastructures, while also identifying areas where improved standardization and structured data representation are needed to enable large-scale analysis of clinical imaging data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42907730What 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.