[Insight-developers] SimpleITK Community Survey Draft

Gabe Hart gabe.hart at kitware.com
Thu Sep 16 17:02:30 EDT 2010


Hi Brad,

This is a good point.  I think the pipeline question is a little too big 
to slip into the middle of an existing question.  I added a new question 
that focuses just on the pros and cons of the pipeline.  I also moved 
the ITK specific questions at the end of the first page (How 
understandable/easy/useful are the pipeline/streaming systems) to the 
last page so that all of the ITK specific questions are there.

-Gabe

On 09/16/2010 04:22 PM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
> Hello all
>
> Just a quick glance through the questions I am concerned about the 
> following: "Pipeline of image filters (eg Gaussian than Sigmoid filter)"
>
> If someone does not know what a pipeline means, in the ITK 
> sense,  then this may be misleading. It may be better to ask if any of 
> the benefits and negatives of a pipeline are need, so that the pros 
> and cons of this design pattern can be reevaluated for the target 
> group. For example ask for feed back on the importance of the following:
>
> tracking filter dependencies
> automatic execution of modified dependencies on update
> automatic streaming ( streaming is possible with out a pipeline)
>
> minimal memory usage
> immediate execution, and direct access to data
>
>
> Just a quick thought,
> Brad
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Gabe Hart wrote:
>
>> Hi Wes and Alex (and everyone else),
>>
>> This is an interesting question indeed.  I went ahead and removed the 
>> "Medical Image Analysis" option from the survey.  Wes, I also made a 
>> number of the other changes you suggested earlier.  Please let me 
>> know if you see anything else that should be changed.
>>
>> Thanks for all the feedback,
>> -Gabe
>>
>> On 09/16/2010 03:48 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
>>> Man not my day to write ... Yes, I meant Alex!  Thanks for being 
>>> kind! :-)
>>>
>>> - Wes
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD 
>>> <agouaillard at gmail.com <mailto:agouaillard at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     he he,
>>>
>>>     you meant alex right, not andre?
>>>
>>>     anyway, I love this question, because I spent few years wit med.
>>>     doctors (in hospitals) and then few more years with biologists, and
>>>     seeing the gap (that I only poorly illustrate in my e-mail
>>>     before) in
>>>     their answers always puzzled me.
>>>
>>>     I agree with you that it should not be that complicated and just be
>>>     medical imaging, or bioimaging, or whatever they want it to be
>>>     as long
>>>     as they leave the processing to us.
>>>
>>>     :)
>>>
>>>     alex.
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Wes Turner
>>>     <wes.turner at kitware.com <mailto:wes.turner at kitware.com>> wrote:
>>>     > Andre,
>>>     > First, very nice note.  I think it lays out the differences
>>>     nicely.  My
>>>     > question was more narrowly focused.  What I was saying
>>>     (poorly) was that we
>>>     > should jettison Medical Image since both radiology and
>>>     microscopy can be
>>>     > medical images and it does not add much additional information
>>>     to the mix.
>>>     >  Either that or we could remove both  Medical Imaging and
>>>     Radiology entirely
>>>     > and replace them with CT/MRI, PET/SPECT/Nuclear Imaging,
>>>     X-Ray/Fluoroscopy,
>>>     > and Ultrasound while leaving microscopy.  Or we can just leave
>>>     it all the
>>>     > way it is.
>>>     > Anyway, thanks again for the response, I promise not to use it
>>>     in a
>>>     > religious war.
>>>     > - Wes
>>>     >
>>>     > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD
>>>     > <agouaillard at gmail.com <mailto:agouaillard at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     >>
>>>     >> hi wes,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Wes Turner
>>>     <wes.turner at kitware.com <mailto:wes.turner at kitware.com>>
>>>     >> wrote:
>>>     >> > Gabe,
>>>     >> > Background Questinos:
>>>     >> > Question 1:
>>>     >> > I'm not sure how Microscopy and Radiology differ from
>>>     Medical Image
>>>     >> > Analysis
>>>     >> > ...
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Here some point of views on what the answer can be. Be
>>>     carefull some
>>>     >> of those answer can start religious wars :-)
>>>     >>
>>>     >> - microscopy would mainly be used by biologists / radiology
>>>     by Med. Dr
>>>     >> (not the same community of users).  "BioImaging" would
>>>     englobe both
>>>     >> fields, while Medical Imaging would only refer to the latest.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> - microscopy images are made by microscopes | radiology use
>>>     scanners
>>>     >> (different hardware)
>>>     >>
>>>     >> - medical images are usually relatively small images, greyscale
>>>     >> (pixeltype), and in majority do not have time (exception
>>>     here: cardiac
>>>     >> CT, ultrasound, ...) whereas microscopy can be 2D, 3D, 2D+t,
>>>     3D+t, and
>>>     >> each image can be an image of vectors (pixeltype). up to
>>>     terabyte per
>>>     >> experiment. that makes the question of the types very
>>>     relevant, as
>>>     >> well as the question of the images fitting into ram.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> - objects contained in medical images tends to come in small
>>>     number
>>>     >> (usually one organ) and are relatively big compared to the
>>>     size of the
>>>     >> image. Microscopy images usually contains numerous targets, small
>>>     >> compared to the size of the images (cells, colonies of
>>>     e-coli, ...).
>>>     >> Algorithms are/should be different.
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > --
>>>     > Wesley D. Turner, Ph.D.
>>>     > Kitware, Inc.
>>>     > Technical Leader
>>>     > 28 Corporate Drive
>>>     > Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662
>>>     > Phone: 518-881-4920
>>>     >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Wesley D. Turner, Ph.D.
>>> Kitware, Inc.
>>> Technical Leader
>>> 28 Corporate Drive
>>> Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662
>>> Phone: 518-881-4920
>>
>> <ATT00001..txt>
>
> ========================================================
>
> Bradley Lowekamp
>
> Lockheed Martin Contractor for
>
> Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
>
> National Library of Medicine
>
> blowekamp at mail.nih.gov <mailto:blowekamp at mail.nih.gov>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20100916/fc74e9cb/attachment.htm>


More information about the Insight-developers mailing list