Cited by 4,599Research Data Management PracticesData Analysis and ArchivingElectronic Health Records Systems

The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository

Open access
Clark, Kenneth, Vendt, Bruce, Smith, Kirk, Freymann, John, Kirby, Justin, Koppel, Paul, Moore, Stephen, Phillips, Stanley +4 more·2013·Journal of Digital Imaging

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health have placed significant emphasis on sharing of research data to support secondary research. Investigators have been encouraged to publish their clinical and imaging data as part of fulfilling their grant obligations. Realizing it was not sufficient to merely ask investigators to publish their collection of imaging and clinical data, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) created the open source National Biomedical Image Archive software package as a mechanism for centralized hosting of cancer related imaging. NCI has contracted with Washington University in Saint Louis to create The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA)-an open-source, open-access information resource to support research, development, and educational initiatives utilizing advanced medical imaging of cancer. In its first year of operation, TCIA accumulated 23 collections (3.3 million images). Operating and maintaining a high-availability image archive is a complex challenge involving varied archive-specific resources and driven by the needs of both image submitters and image consumers. Quality archives of any type (traditional library, PubMed, refereed journals) require management and customer service. This paper describes the management tasks and user support model for TCIA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The adrenocortical carcinoma CT dataset's segmentation target (adrenal tumor) was neither part of the training nor of the existing validation sets.

    “we used the recent adrenocortical carcinoma CT dataset34,42,43, where the segmentation target, adrenal tumor, was neither part of the training nor of the existing validation sets.”

    From Segment anything in medical images (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results section describes TCIA’s CT holdings and lists anatomical sites, but does not identify an adrenocortical carcinoma dataset. Searches for adrenal tumors, segmentation, and training or validation sets found no passage addressing whether that target appeared in those sets. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • They are beginning to be solved through sharing of oncology metadata and some sharing of image files has been enabled by The Cancer Imaging Archive.

    “They are beginning to be solved through sharing of oncology metadata (www.oriencancer.org or the Children’s Oncology Group), and some sharing of image files has been enabled by The Cancer Imaging Archive (77).”

    From Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data (2016) · cites this paper as [77]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Benson DA, et al: GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 25(1):1-6, 1997

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clark, K., Vendt, B., Smith, K., Freymann, J., Kirby, J., Koppel, P., Moore, S., Phillips, S., Maffitt, D., Pringle, M., Tarbox, L., & Prior, F.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (US)
Corresponding author
Clark, Kenneth
Venue
Journal of Digital Imaging
Published
2013-07-25
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
1045-1057
ISSN
  • 0897-1889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-727X
OpenAlex
W2083927153
Cited by
4,599
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 337 · 2025: 584 · 2024: 685 · 2023: 667 · 2022: 623 · 2021: 542 · 2020: 418 · 2019: 320 · 2018: 204 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
101.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN261200800001E)
  • Radiological Society of North America
  • National Institutes of Health (Contract No. HHSN261200800001E., #HHSN261200800001E, HHSN261200800001C)
  • National Cancer Institute (No. HHSN261200800001E, Contract No.,HHSN261200800001E, HHSN261200800001E))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
The Cancer Imaging Archive, medical image repositories, tumor imaging, open source software, data sharing, secondary research, repository management, user support
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Imaging, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics, Neoplasms, Quality Control, Radiology Information Systems, Software, United States, Program Evaluation, Information Storage and Retrieval, National Cancer Institute (U.S.), Multimodal Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review