2006 October IGT Workshop Panel Discussion II

Back to workshop agenda

Panel Chair: Keyvan Farahani

Panelists: Abraham Levy, John Haller, Larry Clarke, Terry Yoo.

Guidelines

Guidelines for panel discussion:

1. Questions from the audience on the morning session
2. Challenges proposed by presenters in the morning session
3. Are there any low-hanging fruit? anything that NCIGT and NA-MIC can help with?
4. Are there any specific issues that should be added to the breakout discussions agenda?
5. Any opportunities for problems that could be solved with industry-academia partnerships?

Discussion

• Dicom24 standard - driven more by classic dicom community - relevant to IGI?
  • Lemke: not only driven by dicom community, workgroups and committees include surgeons, IGI engineers etc. Our motivation actually comes from this side of the community. Note discussions of image-centric view to model-centric view - evidence of shift from classic dicom community. Extension to therapeutic community.
  • Cleary: similar experience. DICOM is natural start, as opposed to starting from scratch?
  • Lorenson: lots of work to leverage work from CAD community - to get surface representations, and such into standards like DICOM.
  • Lemke: mesh3D is example of move in this direction. At RSNA this year, there will be a DICOM meeting.
  • Kazanzides: See ISO11073, CanOpen, CIMIT PnP groups - related
  • Fichtinger: NOTE also issues of timing and image transfer that may be a larger problem than content of DICOM.
  • Haller: need for workgroup for standards for imaging in IGI
  • Clarke: consider context of standards for biomarkers community etc. - need broader involvement. NIST-NEMA-FDA discussions - broader framework for standards - IGI needs to fit into that framework.
  • Fichtinger: IGI has limited muscle to push change at present - we need to be aware of this when discussing standards like DICOM.

• What can NIH do for IGI?
  • Hata: IGI of moving organs needs attention
  • Yoo: earlier question about requirements for open source. Is this important? We may exclude som folks, but we can cater to many others. Perhaps we can take the plunge and REQUIRE open-source / open-data in future NIH calls for proposals. See Fitzpatrick registration database experience (how to reproduce)
  • Galloway: Problem is that large companies do much more development than research - they acquire small companies for this. Open source may kill startups.
  • Kikinis: Open source is like a highway, paved by taxpayers money as shared infrastructure - leverage it and to VALUE ADD with your own IP. the open source can be an enabler.
  • Zuhara: this community can think about how to create more incentive for small companies to buy into open source. demonstrations? how?
  • Do we develop a product first and then open it?
  • Not useful, since we still cannot use it.
  • Hasser: dangers to impose open source on small projects - perhaps need to focus on the highways.
  • Haller: title of workshop includes "open architecture" - we have been focusing on open source - different?
  • Aylward: focus on the "highway" and contribute back to the infrastructure - no necessary to release your algorithms back if not relevant or the dilute community efforts.

• NCI Industry Forum, Feb 1-2 2007, Rockville (see CIP Website imaging.cancer.gov)

• Request for breakouts - ACTION ITEMS.

• What can IGI do for NIH?
  • ...

• Are there any low-hanging fruits? Anything that NCIGT and NAMIC can help with?
  • ...

• Are there specific issues that should be added to breakouts?
  • ...

• Opportunities for problems that could be solved with industry-academia partnerships?
  • ...