MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757862658 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0336

<i>dcmqi</i> : An Open Source Library for Standardized Communication of Quantitative Image Analysis Results Using DICOM

2017· article· en· W2757862658 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Herz, Jean‐Christophe Fillion‐Robin, Michael D. Onken, Jörg Riesmeier, András Lassó, Csaba Pintér, Gábor Fichtinger, Steve Pieper, David Clunie, Ron Kikinis, Andriy Fedorov

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDICOMComputer scienceMetadataInteroperabilityDigital imagingOpen sourceInformation retrievalDigital imageSoftwareImage (mathematics)Image processingArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative analysis of clinical image data is an active area of research that holds promise for precision medicine, early assessment of treatment response, and objective characterization of the disease. Interoperability, data sharing, and the ability to mine the resulting data are of increasing importance, given the explosive growth in the number of quantitative analysis methods being proposed. The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard is widely adopted for image and metadata in radiology. dcmqi (DICOM for Quantitative Imaging) is a free, open source library that implements conversion of the data stored in commonly used research formats into the standard DICOM representation. dcmqi source code is distributed under BSD-style license. It is freely available as a precompiled binary package for every major operating system, as a Docker image, and as an extension to 3D Slicer. Installation and usage instructions are provided in the GitHub repository at https://github.com/qiicr/dcmqi. Cancer Res; 77(21); e87–90. ©2017 AACR.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Software
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Software
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3070.284

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207