Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9,023

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network

Open access
Fedorov, Andriy, Beichel, Reinhard, Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree, Finet, Julien, Fillion-Robin, Jean-Christophe, Pujol, Sonia, Bauer, Christian, Jennings, Dominique, Fennessy, Fiona, Sonka, Milan, Buatti, John, Aylward, Stephen, Miller, James V., Pieper, Steve, Kikinis, Ron·2012·Magnetic Resonance Imaging
DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Quantitative analysis has tremendous but mostly unrealized potential in healthcare to support objective and accurate interpretation of the clinical imaging. In 2008, the National Cancer Institute began building the Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) initiative with the goal of advancing quantitative imaging in the context of personalized therapy and evaluation of treatment response. Computerized analysis is an important component contributing to reproducibility and efficiency of the quantitative imaging techniques. The success of quantitative imaging is contingent on robust analysis methods and software tools to bring these methods from bench to bedside. 3D Slicer is a free open source software application for medical image computing. As a clinical research tool, 3D Slicer is similar to a radiology workstation that supports versatile visualizations but also provides advanced functionality such as automated segmentation and registration for a variety of application domains. Unlike a typical radiology workstation, 3D Slicer is free and is not tied to specific hardware. As a programming platform, 3D Slicer facilitates translation and evaluation of the new quantitative methods by allowing the biomedical researcher to focus on the implementation of the algorithm, and providing abstractions for the common tasks of data communication, visualization and user interface development. Compared to other tools that provide aspects of this functionality, 3D Slicer is fully open source and can be readily extended and redistributed. In addition, 3D Slicer is designed to facilitate the development of new functionality in the form of 3D Slicer extensions. In this paper, we present an overview of 3D Slicer as a platform for prototyping, development and evaluation of image analysis tools for clinical research applications. To illustrate the utility of the platform in the scope of QIN, we discuss several use cases of 3D Slicer by the existing QIN teams, and we elaborate on the future directions that can further facilitate development and validation of imaging biomarkers using 3D Slicer.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Jemal, 2011, Global cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69, 10.3322/caac.20107 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Park, 2004, Rationale for biomarkers and surrogate end points in mechanism-driven oncology drug development, Clin Cancer Res, 10, 3885, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0785 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Jeraj, 2010, Imaging for assessment of radiation-induced normal tissue effects, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 76, S140, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.077 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.077
  4. Jaffe, 2010, Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 195, 101, 10.2214/AJR.09.2850 · doi:10.2214/ajr.09.2850
  5. Clarke, 2009, Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy, Transl Oncol, 2, 195, 10.1593/tlo.09217 · DOI
  6. Gering DT. A System for Surgical Planning and Guidance using Image Fusion and Interventional MR. 1999:106. · doi:10.1007/10704282_88
  7. Grimson, 1998, Vol. 1496, 63
  8. Gering, 2001, An integrated visualization system for surgical planning and guidance using image fusion and an open MR, J Magn Reson Imaging, 13, 967, 10.1002/jmri.1139 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tempany, 2008, MR-guided prostate interventions, J Magn Reson Imaging, 27, 356, 10.1002/jmri.21259 · DOI
  10. Golby, 2011, Interactive diffusion tensor tractography visualization for neurosurgical planning, Neurosurgery, 68, 496, 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182061ebb · DOI
  11. Caskey, 2011, An open environment CT–US fusion for tissue segmentation during interventional guidance, PLoS One, 6, e27372, 10.1371/journal.pone.0027372 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027372
  12. Frisardi, 2011, Integration of 3D anatomical data obtained by CT imaging and 3D optical scanning for computer aided implant surgery, BMC Med Imaging, 11, 5, 10.1186/1471-2342-11-5 · DOI
  13. Uneri, 2011, TREK: an integrated system architecture for intraoperative cone-beam CT-guided surgery, Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 7, 159, 10.1007/s11548-011-0636-7 · doi:10.1007/s11548-011-0636-7
  14. Reed, 2011, Is there an astronomer in the house?, Science (New York, N.Y.), 331, 696, 10.1126/science.331.6018.696 · doi:10.1126/science.331.6018.696
  15. Fedorov, 2011, Atlas-guided segmentation of vervet monkey brain MRI, Open Neuroimaging J, 5, 186, 10.2174/1874440001105010186 · DOI
  16. Yeo, 2011, The effect of augmented reality training on percutaneous needle placement in spinal facet joint injections, IEEE Trans Bio-Medical Eng, 58, 2031, 10.1109/TBME.2011.2132131 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2132131
  17. Xu H, Gage HD, Santago P. An open source implementation of colon CAD in 3D slicer. In: Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 7624.; 2010. pp. 762421–762421–9. · doi:10.1117/12.844370
  18. Washko, 2011, Lung volumes and emphysema in smokers with interstitial lung abnormalities, N Engl J Med, 364, 897, 10.1056/NEJMoa1007285 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Chen, 2011, Three-dimensional in vivo modeling of vestibular schwannomas and surrounding cranial nerves with diffusion imaging tractography, Neurosurgery, 68, 1077, 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820c6cbe · DOI
  20. Vatta, 2011, Brain morphometry in autism spectrum disorders: a unified approach for structure-specific statistical analysis of neuroimaging data — Biomed 2011, Biomed Sci Instrum, 47, 135
  21. Ashburner, 2009, Computational anatomy with the SPM software, Magn Reson Imaging, 27, 1163, 10.1016/j.mri.2009.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jiang, 2006, DtiStudio: resource program for diffusion tensor computation and fiber bundle tracking, Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 81, 106, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2005.08.004 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Rosset, 2004, OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images, J Digit Imaging, 17, 205, 10.1007/s10278-004-1014-6 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Barboriak, 2005, Creation of DICOM-aware applications using Image J, J Digit Imaging, 18, 91, 10.1007/s10278-004-1879-4 · DOI
  25. Liao W, Deserno TM, Spitzer K. Evaluation of free non-diagnostic DICOM software tools. In: Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6919. SPIE; 2008. pp. 691903-691903-12. · DOI
  26. Walter, 2010, Visualization of image data from cells to organisms, Nat Methods, 7, S26, 10.1038/nmeth.1431 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Rubin, 2009, Annotation and image markup: accessing and interoperating with the semantic content in medical imaging, IEEE Intelligent Syst, 24, 57, 10.1109/MIS.2009.3 · doi:10.1109/mis.2009.3
  28. Channin, 2010, The caBIG annotation and image markup project, J Digit Imaging, 23, 217, 10.1007/s10278-009-9193-9 · DOI
  29. Pieper S, Halle M, Kikinis R. 3D Slicer. In: Proc. of the 1st IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro 2004.; 2004. pp. 632–635. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Mildenberger, 2002, Introduction to the DICOM standard, Eur Radiol, 12, 920, 10.1007/s003300101100 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Pieper S, Lorensen B, Schroeder W, Kikinis R. The NA-MIC Kit: ITK, VTK, Pipelines, Grids and 3D Slicer as An Open Platform for the Medical Image Computing Community. In: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Macro to Nano, 2006. IEEE; 2006. pp. 698-701.
  32. Estépar, 2007, Towards scarless surgery: an endoscopic ultrasound navigation system for transgastric access procedures, Comput Aided Surg, 12, 311, 10.1080/10929080701746892 · doi:10.1080/10929080701746892
  33. Perona, 1990, Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion, IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 12, 629, 10.1109/34.56205 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Tustison, 2010, N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 29, 1310, 10.1109/TMI.2010.2046908 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Horn, 1988, Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices, J Opt Soc Am, 5, 1127, 10.1364/JOSAA.5.001127 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Wells, 1996, Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information, Med Image Anal, 1, 35, 10.1016/S1361-8415(01)80004-9 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Mattes, 2003, PET-CT image registration in the chest using free-form deformations, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 22, 120, 10.1109/TMI.2003.809072 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Karasev P, Malcolm J, Niethammer M, Kikinis R, Tannenbaum A. User-driven 3D mesh region targeting. Imaging. 2010;7625:762513-762513-8. · doi:10.1117/12.845661
  39. Pichon, 2004, A statistically based flow for image segmentation, Med Image Anal, 8, 267, 10.1016/j.media.2004.06.006 · DOI
  40. Veeraraghavan H, Miller JV. Active learning guided interactions for consistent image segmentation with reduced user interactions. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. IEEE; 2011. pp. 1645-1648. · DOI
  41. Wells, 1996, Adaptive segmentation of MRI data, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 15, 429, 10.1109/42.511747 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Pohl, 2007, A hierarchical algorithm for MR brain image parcellation, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 26, 1201, 10.1109/TMI.2007.901433 · DOI
  43. Basser, 2000, In vivo fiber tractography using DT-MRI data, Magn Reson Med, 44, 625, 10.1002/1522-2594(200010)44:4<625::AID-MRM17>3.0.CO;2-O · doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200010)44:4<625::aid-mrm17>3.0.co;2-o
  44. Tokuda, 2009, OpenIGTLink: an open network protocol for image-guided therapy environment, Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg MRCAS., 5, 423, 10.1002/rcs.274 · doi:10.1002/rcs.274
  45. Eads, 2008, Experiences using SciPy for computer vision research, 22, 10.25080/GVTA4131 · doi:10.25080/gvta4131
  46. Pierson, 2011, Fully automated analysis using BRAINS: AutoWorkup, Neuroimage, 54, 328, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.047 · DOI
  47. Gorgolewski, 2011, Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in Python, Front Neuroinformatics, 5, 15
  48. Turkbey, 2010, Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation, Radiology, 255, 89, 10.1148/radiol.09090475 · doi:10.1148/radiol.09090475
  49. Hoeks, 2011, Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging, Radiology, 261, 46, 10.1148/radiol.11091822 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Fennessy, 2011, A comparison between arterial input function approaches for high temporal resolution pharmacokinetic analysis of prostate cancer at 3.0T, Vol. 17, 3064
  51. Fennessy, 2012, Assessment of abnormal ADC matched voxels with DCE parameters for characterization of prostate cancer at 3T, Vol. 2
  52. Fedorov, 2011, Hierarchical image registration for improved sampling during 3T MRI-guided transperineal targeted prostate biopsy, Vol. 29, 3055
  53. Fedorov, 2012, Deformable registration for recovering image distortions in DWI MRI of the prostate at 3T, Vol. 256
  54. Clunie, 2007, DICOM structured reporting and cancer clinical trials results, Cancer Inf, 4, 33, 10.4137/CIN.S37032 · DOI
  55. Wahl, 2009, From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors, J Nucl Med, 50, 122S, 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Boellaard, 2009, Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis, J Nucl Med, 50, 11S, 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Tomasi, 2011, Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future, Mol Imaging Biol, 13, 1
  58. Scott, 2010, Bevacizumab salvage therapy following progression in high-grade glioma patients treated with VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, Neuro Oncol, 12, 603, 10.1093/neuonc/nop073 · DOI
  59. Sorensen, 2009, A “vascular normalization index” as potential mechanistic biomarker to predict survival after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients, Cancer Res, 69, 5296, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0814 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Wen, 2010, Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group, J Clin Oncol, 28, 1963, 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 9,023

Metadata

Authors
Fedorov, A., Beichel, R., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Finet, J., Fillion-Robin, J.-C., Pujol, S., Bauer, C., Jennings, D., Fennessy, F., Sonka, M., Buatti, J., Aylward, S., Miller, J. V., Pieper, S., & Kikinis, R.
Venue
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
1323-1341
ISSN
0730-725X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
OpenAlex
W2026616100
Cited by
9,023
References
5
FWCI
96.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
The paper
Fedorov, A., Beichel, R., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Finet, J., Fillion-Robin, J.-C., Pujol, S., Bauer, C., Jennings, D., Fennessy, F., Sonka, M., Buatti, J., Aylward, S., Miller, J. V., Pieper, S., & Kikinis, R. (2012). 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.