Title |
Medical Image Data and Datasets in the Era of Machine Learning—Whitepaper from the 2016 C-MIMI Meeting Dataset Session
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10278-017-9976-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Marc D. Kohli, Ronald M. Summers, J. Raymond Geis |
Abstract |
At the first annual Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging (C-MIMI), held in September 2016, a conference session on medical image data and datasets for machine learning identified multiple issues. The common theme from attendees was that everyone participating in medical image evaluation with machine learning is data starved. There is an urgent need to find better ways to collect, annotate, and reuse medical imaging data. Unique domain issues with medical image datasets require further study, development, and dissemination of best practices and standards, and a coordinated effort among medical imaging domain experts, medical imaging informaticists, government and industry data scientists, and interested commercial, academic, and government entities. High-level attributes of reusable medical image datasets suitable to train, test, validate, verify, and regulate ML products should be better described. NIH and other government agencies should promote and, where applicable, enforce, access to medical image datasets. We should improve communication among medical imaging domain experts, medical imaging informaticists, academic clinical and basic science researchers, government and industry data scientists, and interested commercial entities. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 29% |
Germany | 2 | 14% |
Brazil | 1 | 7% |
Ireland | 1 | 7% |
Israel | 1 | 7% |
Chile | 1 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 240 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 19% |
Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
Researcher | 24 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
Other | 13 | 5% |
Other | 46 | 19% |
Unknown | 65 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Computer Science | 48 | 20% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 19% |
Engineering | 26 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
Other | 26 | 11% |
Unknown | 83 | 35% |