4.6 Article

GridIMAGE: A novel use of grid computing to support interactive human and computer-assisted detection decision support

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 160-171

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-007-9020-0

关键词

grid computing; grid architectures; caBIG (TM); caGrid; computer-assisted detection; digital imaging and communications in medicine

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [P20-EB000591, P20 EB000591] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Division Of Computer and Network Systems
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0917775] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes a Grid-aware image reviewing system (GridIMAGE) that allows practitioners to (a) select images from multiple geographically distributed digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) servers, (b) send those images to a specified group of human readers and computer-assisted detection (CAD) algorithms, and (c) obtain and compare interpretations from human readers and CAD algorithms. The currently implemented system was developed using the National Cancer Institute caGrid infrastructure and is designed to support the identification of lung nodules on thoracic computed tomography. However, the infrastructure is general and can support any type of distributed review. caGrid data and analytical services are used to link DICOM image databases and CAD systems and to interact with human readers. Moreover, the service-oriented and distributed structure of the GridIMAGE framework enables a flexible system, which can be deployed in an institution (linking multiple DICOM servers and CAD algorithms) and in a Grid environment (linking the resources of collaborating research groups). GridIMAGE provides a framework that allows practitioners to obtain interpretations from one or more human readers or CAD algorithms. It also provides a mechanism to allow cooperative imaging groups to systematically perform image interpretation tasks associated with research protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据