MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165467504 · doi:10.1148/rg.236035074

Extending PowerPoint with DICOM Image Support

2003· article· en· W2165467504 on OpenAlexaff
Masoom A. Haider

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDICOMZoomComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Presentation (obstetrics)Window (computing)Picture archiving and communication systemComputer visionMedical imagingArtificial intelligenceMultimediaMedicineRadiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although PowerPoint has become a ubiquitous presentation tool in medical imaging, it does not support the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard. Users must go through a laborious conversion process that includes guessing the appropriate brightness and contrast to convert 16-bit DICOM images into 8-bit formats. A PowerPoint add-in was developed that incorporates features of a DICOM viewer into a presentation. Users can interactively manipulate large series of 16-bit images in stack mode with scroll, crop, zoom, and window width and level functions, as well as sort through images by location or series. Multiple DICOM image series can be placed on a single slide, and one can interactively scroll through stacks of images during a presentation to demonstrate imaging findings. The problem created by the varying contrast and brightness of different projector systems is overcome by interactively adjusting the image window level during presentations. Bone and lung window views can be shown without having to create separate images. Combining DICOM images into stacks as part of a PowerPoint presentation can result in a more effective and higher-quality presentation of medical images.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.022

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207