4.7 Article

Lung image database consortium: Developing a resource for the medical imaging research community

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 232, 期 3, 页码 739-748

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323032035

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA091090, U01CA091090, U01 CA091085, U01 CA091103, U01CA091103, U01 CA091099, U01CA091099, U01CA091085, U01CA091100] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To stimulate the advancement of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) research for lung nodules in thoracic computed tomography (CT), the National Cancer Institute launched a cooperative effort known as the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC). The LIDC is composed of five academic institutions from across the United States that are working together to develop an image database that will serve as an international research resource for the development, training, and evaluation of CAD methods in the detection of lung nodules on CT scans. Prior to the collection of CT images and associated patient data, the LIDC has been engaged in a consensus process to identify, address, and resolve a host of challenging technical and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a scientifically robust database. These issues include the establishment of (a) a governing mission statement, (b) criteria to determine whether a CT scan is eligible for inclusion in the database, (c) an appropriate definition of the term qualifying nodule, (d) an appropriate definition of truth requirements, (e) a process model through which the database will be populated, and (f) a statistical framework to guide the application of assessment methods by users of the database. Through a consensus process in which careful planning and proper consideration of fundamental issues have been emphasized, the LIDC database is expected to provide a powerful resource for the medical imaging research community. This article is intended to share with the community the breadth and depth of these key issues. (C) RSNA, 2004.

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

4.7
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