Cited by 73AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records Systems

DICOM format and protocol standardization—A core requirement for digital pathology success

Clunie, David A.·2021·Toxicologic Pathology

Abstract

As the use of digital techniques in toxicologic pathology expands, challenges of scalability and interoperability come to the fore. Proprietary formats and closed single-vendor platforms prevail but depend on the availability and maintenance of multiformat conversion libraries. Expedient for small deployments, this is not sustainable at an industrial scale. Primarily known as a standard for radiology, the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard has been evolving to support other specialties since its inception, to become the single ubiquitous standard throughout medical imaging. The adoption of DICOM for whole slide imaging (WSI) has been sluggish. Prospects for widespread commercially viable clinical use of digital pathology change the incentives. Connectathons using DICOM have demonstrated its feasibility for WSI and virtual microscopy. Adoption of DICOM for digital and computational pathology will allow the reuse of enterprise-wide infrastructure for storage, security, and business continuity. The DICOM embedded metadata allows detached files to remain useful. Bright-field and multichannel fluorescence, Z-stacks, cytology, and sparse and fully tiled encoding are supported. External terminologies and standard compression schemes are supported. Color consistency is defined using International Color Consortium profiles. The DICOM files can be dual personality Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) for legacy support. Annotations for computational pathology results can be encoded.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0192623320965893

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 73

Authors
Clunie, D. A.
Affiliations
PixelMed Publishing, LLC, Bangor, PA, USA
Corresponding author
Clunie, David A.
Venue
Toxicologic Pathology
Published
2020-10-16
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
738-749
ISSN
  • 0192-6233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-1601
OpenAlex
W3093002967
Cited by
73
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Toxicologic Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
DICOM, digital pathology, whole slide imaging, interoperability, virtual microscopy, embedded metadata, TIFF, color consistency, computational pathology, image compression
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Radiology Information Systems, Reference Standards

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