MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022777305 · doi:10.1200/cci.19.00165

Quantitative Imaging Informatics for Cancer Research

2020· article· en· W3022777305 on OpenAlexaff
Andriy Fedorov, Reinhard Beichel, Jayashree Kalpathy–Cramer, David Clunie, Michael D. Onken, Jörg Riesmeier, Christian Herz, Christian Bauer, Andrew Beers, Jean‐Christophe Fillion‐Robin, András Lassó, Csaba Pintér, Steve Pieper, Marco Nolden, Klaus Maier‐Hein, Markus D. Herrmann, Joel Saltz, Fred Prior, Fiona Fennessy, John M. Buatti, Ron Kikinis

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthLeidosUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsDICOMStandardizationHealth informaticsInformaticsComputer scienceHealth informatics toolsData scienceImplementationInterface (matter)Medical physicsMedicineSoftware engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We summarize Quantitative Imaging Informatics for Cancer Research (QIICR; U24 CA180918), one of the first projects funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Informatics Technology for Cancer Research program. METHODS: QIICR was motivated by the 3 use cases from the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network. 3D Slicer was selected as the platform for implementation of open-source quantitative imaging (QI) tools. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) was chosen for standardization of QI analysis outputs. Support of improved integration with community repositories focused on The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). Priorities included improved capabilities of the standard, toolkits and tools, reference datasets, collaborations, and training and outreach. RESULTS: Fourteen new tools to support head and neck cancer, glioblastoma, and prostate cancer QI research were introduced and downloaded over 100,000 times. DICOM was amended, with over 40 correction proposals addressing QI needs. Reference implementations of the standard in a popular toolkit and standalone tools were introduced. Eight datasets exemplifying the application of the standard and tools were contributed. An open demonstration/connectathon was organized, attracting the participation of academic groups and commercial vendors. Integration of tools with TCIA was improved by implementing programmatic communication interface and by refining best practices for QI analysis results curation. CONCLUSION: Tools, capabilities of the DICOM standard, and datasets we introduced found adoption and utility within the cancer imaging community. A collaborative approach is critical to addressing challenges in imaging informatics at the national and international levels. Numerous challenges remain in establishing and maintaining the infrastructure of analysis tools and standardized datasets for the imaging community. Ideas and technology developed by the QIICR project are contributing to the NCI Imaging Data Commons currently being developed.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Clinical Cancer InformaticsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207