National Cancer Institute Imaging Data Commons: Toward Transparency, Reproducibility, and Scalability in Imaging Artificial Intelligence.

The remarkable advances of artificial intelligence (AI) technology are revolutionizing established approaches to the acquisition, interpretation, and analysis of biomedical imaging data. Development, validation, and continuous refinement of AI tools requires easy access to large high-quality annotated datasets, which are both representative and diverse. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Imaging Data Commons (IDC) hosts large and diverse publicly available cancer image data collections. By harmonizing all data based on industry standards and colocalizing it with analysis and exploration resources, the IDC aims to facilitate the development, validation, and clinical translation of AI tools and address the well-documented challenges of establishing reproducible and transparent AI processing pipelines. Balanced use of established commercial products with open-source solutions, interconnected by standard interfaces, provides value and performance, while preserving sufficient agility to address the evolving needs of the research community. Emphasis on the development of tools, use cases to demonstrate the utility of uniform data representation, and cloud-based analysis aim to ease adoption and help define best practices. Integration with other data in the broader NCI Cancer Research Data Commons infrastructure opens opportunities for multiomics studies incorporating imaging data to further empower the research community to accelerate breakthroughs in cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Surgery, virtual reality, and the future.

MMVR has provided the leading forum for the multidisciplinary interaction and development of the use of Virtual Reality (VR) techniques in medicine, particularly in surgical practice. Here we look back at the foundations of our field, focusing on the use of VR in Surgery and similar interventional procedures, sum up the current status, and describe the challenges and opportunities going forward.

Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multi-institutional study performed by Biomedical Informatics Research Network.

PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the factors--including subject, brain hemisphere, study site, field strength, imaging unit vendor, imaging run, and examination visit--affecting the reproducibility of functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging activations based on a repeated sensory-motor (SM) task. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review boards of all participating sites approved this HIPAA-compliant study. All subjects gave informed consent. Functional MR imaging data were repeatedly acquired from five healthy men aged 20-29 years who performed the same SM task at 10 sites. Five 1.5-T MR imaging units, four 3.0-T units, and one 4.0-T unit were used. The subjects performed bilateral finger tapping on button boxes with a 3-Hz audio cue and a reversing checkerboard. In a block design, 15-second epochs of alternating baseline and tasks yielded 85 acquisitions per run. Functional MR images were acquired with block-design echo-planar or spiral gradient-echo sequences. Brain activation maps standardized in a unit-sphere for the left and right hemispheres of each subject were constructed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, intraclass correlation coefficients, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Significant factors were subject (P < .005), k-space (P < .005), and field strength (P = .02) for sensitivity and subject (P = .03) and k-space (P = .05) for specificity. At 1.5-T MR imaging, mean sensitivities ranged from 7% to 32% and mean specificities were higher than 99%. At 3.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 42% to 85% and from 96% to 99%, respectively. At 4.0 T, mean sensitivities and specificities ranged from 41% to 73% and from 95% to 99%, respectively. Mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (+/- their standard errors) were 0.77 +/- 0.05 at 1.5 T, 0.90 +/- 0.09 at 3.0 T, and 0.95 +/- 0.02 at 4.0 T, with significant differences between the 1.5- and 3.0-T examinations and between the 1.5- and 4.0-T examinations (P < .01 for both comparisons). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.49 to 0.71. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3.0- and 4.0-T yielded higher reproducibility across sites and significantly better results than 1.5-T imaging. The effects of subject, k-space, and field strength on examination reproducibility were significant.