Review of the Free Research Software for Computer-Assisted Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research software is continuously developed to facilitate progress and innovation in the medical field. Over time, numerous research software programs have been created, making it challenging to keep abreast of what is available. This work aims to evaluate the most frequently utilized software by the computer-assisted intervention (CAI) research community. The software assessments encompass a range of criteria, including load time, stress load, multi-tasking, extensibility and range of functionalities, user-friendliness, documentation, and technical support. A total of eight software programs were selected: 3D Slicer, Elastix, ITK-SNAP, MedInria, MeVisLab, MIPAV, and Seg3D. While none of the software was found to be perfect on all evaluation criteria, 3D Slicer and ITK-SNAP emerged with the highest rankings overall. These two software programs could frequently complement each other, as 3D Slicer has a broad and customizable range of features, while ITK-SNAP excels at performing fundamental tasks in an efficient manner. Nonetheless, each software had distinctive features that may better fit the requirements of certain research projects. This review provides valuable information to CAI researchers seeking the best-suited software to support their projects. The evaluation also offers insights for the software development teams, as it highlights areas where the software can be improved.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".