gsdf_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
评价文档：
8页免费3页免费1页1下载券
喜欢此文档的还喜欢4页1下载券12页1下载券1页免费2页4下载券12页免费
gsdf|s​g​ ​s​d​s​f​g​ ​s​g​ ​s​g
把文档贴到Blog、BBS或个人站等：
普通尺寸(450*500pix)
较大尺寸(630*500pix)
你可能喜欢社区广播站:
&&子论坛：
经验：1392
主帖：465回帖：666
注册时间：
发表于& 09:55&第楼 &
XBGFDXJHNBV
被 武则天入宫 编辑]
本版内容仅代表网民个人观点，不代表本网立场Verification of DICOM GSDF in complex backgrounds.
- PubMed - NCBI
The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function.
FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListApplyChoose DestinationFileClipboardCollectionsE-mailOrderMy BibliographyCitation managerFormatSummary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCSVCreate File1 selected item: FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other DataE-mailSubjectAdditional textE-mailAdd to ClipboardAdd to CollectionsOrder articlesAdd to My BibliographyGenerate a file for use with external citation management software.Create File
):662-9.Verification of DICOM GSDF in complex backgrounds.1, , , , , , , .1Analogic Corporation, 8 Centennial Drive, Peabody, MA 01960, USA. AbstractWhile previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.PMID:
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3447097 A sample clustered lumpy background image showing the highest contrast disk that was added to the backgrounds. The left lower edge of the disk is marked with a white arrow. As intended, the background variation remains visible through the diskJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.The plot shows a horizontal line profile of the image shown in Fig. 1 through the center of the contrast disk. The left and the right edges of the disk are shown by the black arrows. The background variation remains independent of the disk and is seen as an offsetJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.The graph shows the area under the curve (AUC) for each reader, as a gray dot, with a box–whiskers plot to show the distribution of the sores at each median background level. The horizontal line is the mean of all AUC scoresJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.Mosaic plot showing the proportion of all reader confidence score as the contrast in the disk changed for all background levels. The scores relate to the confidence scale listed in Table 3. White indicates a score of 5 (very confident that an object is present) and black a score of 1 (very confident that an object is not present). The y-axis on the left is the percent distribution of the score. The right axis label is the score numberJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.Mosaic plot showing the proportion of readers who scored a disk as either absent (score of 3–5, dark gray) or present (score of 1–2, white) as the contrast in the disk changed. The y-axis on the left is the percent distribution of the score. The right axis is the detection label. As contrast increased, readers were more likely to score correctly those images actually containing disksJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.Mosaic plot showing the reader confidence score as the median background changed for each of the five disk contrasts and for images with no disk. The scores relate to the confidence scale listed in Table 3. White indicates a score of 5 (very confident that an object is present) and black a score of 1 (very confident that an object is not present). The y-axis on the left is the percent distribution of the score. The right axis label is the score numberJ Digit Imaging. ):662-669.Publication TypesMeSH TermsFull Text SourcesOther Literature SourcesMedical
Supplemental Content
External link. Please review our .From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from )
This article has multiple issues. Please help
or discuss these issues on the .
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. Consider
with a . (July 2011)
This article needs additional citations for . Please help
by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) is a standard for handling, storing, printing, and
information in . It includes a
definition and a network . The communication protocol is an application protocol that uses
to communicate between systems. DICOM files can be exchanged between two entities that are capable of receiving image and patient data in DICOM format. The
(NEMA) holds the copyright to this standard. It was developed by the DICOM Standards Committee, whose members are also partly members of NEMA.
DICOM enables the integration of scanners, servers, workstations, printers, and network hardware from multiple manufacturers into a
(PACS). The different devices come with DICOM conformance statements which clearly state which DICOM classes they support. DICOM has been widely adopted by
and is making inroads in smaller applications like dentists' and doctors' offices.
DICOM is known as
standard PS3, and as
"Health informatics -- Digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) including workflow and data management".
The DICOM standard is divided into related but independent parts:
This article appears to be written like . Please help
by rewriting promotional content from a
and removing any inappropriate . (December 2014)
The links below are to the 2011 version. Additions to the standard (Supplements and Change Proposals) since that publication are available through the .
PS 3.1:  PDF (241 )
PS 3.2:  PDF (6.46 )
PS 3.3:  PDF (6.96 )
PS 3.4:  PDF (1.07 )
PS 3.5:  PDF (588 )
PS 3.6:  PDF (7.32 )
PS 3.7:  PDF (1.97 )
PS 3.8:  PDF (901 )
PS 3.9: Retired (formerly Point-to-Point Communication Support for Message Exchange)
PS 3.10:  PDF (406 )
PS 3.11:  PDF (398 )
PS 3.12:  PDF (302 )
PS 3.13: Retired (formerly Print Management Point-to-Point Communication Support)
PS 3.14:  PDF (478 )
PS 3.15:  PDF (753 )
PS 3.16:  PDF (5.03 )
PS 3.17:  PDF (11.40 )
PS 3.18:  PDF (203 )
PS 3.19:  PDF (1.22 )
PS 3.20:  PDF (570 )
Front page of ACR/NEMA 300, version 1.0, which was released in 1985
DICOM is the First version of a standard developed by
In the beginning of the 1980s, it was very difficult for anyone other than manufacturers of
devices to decode the images that the machines generated. Radiologists and medical physicists wanted to use the images for dose-planning for . ACR and NEMA joined forces and formed a standard committee in 1983. Their first standard, ACR/NEMA 300, was released in 1985. Very soon after its release, it became clear that improvements were needed. The text was vague and had internal contradictions.
In 1988 the second version was released. This version gained more acceptance among vendors. The image transmission was specified as over a dedicated 2 pair cable (EIA-485). The first demonstration of ACR/NEMA V2.0 interconnectivity technology was held at Georgetown University, May 21–23, 1990. Six companies participated in this event, DeJarnette Research Systems, General Electric Medical Systems, Merge Technologies, Siemens Medical Systems, Vortech (acquired by Kodak that same year) and 3M. Commercial equipment supporting ACR/NEMA 2.0 was presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in 1990 by these same vendors. Many soon realized that the second version also needed improvement. Several extensions to ACR/NEMA 2.0 were created, like Papyrus (developed by the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland) and SPI (Standard Product Interconnect), driven by Siemens Medical Systems and Philips Medical Systems.
The first large-scale deployment of ACR/NEMA technology was made in 1992 by the US Army and Air Force, as part of the
program run out of Ft. Detrick, Maryland. Loral Aerospace and Siemens Medical Systems led a consortium of companies in deploying the first US military
at all major Army and Air Force medical treatment facilities and teleradiology nodes at a large number of US military clinics. DeJarnette Research Systems and Merge Technologies provided the modality gateway interfaces from third party imaging modalities to the Siemens SPI network. The Veterans Administration and the Navy also purchased systems off this contract.
In 1993 the third version of the standard was released. Its name was then changed to "DICOM" so as to improve the possibility of international acceptance as a standard. New service classes were defined, network support added and the Conformance Statement was introduced. Officially, the latest version of the standard is still 3.0. However, it has been constantly updated and extended since 1993. Instead of using the version number, the standard is often version-numbered using the release year, like "the 2007 version of DICOM".
While the DICOM standard has achieved a near universal level of acceptance amongst medical imaging equipment vendors and healthcare IT organizations, the standard has its limitations. DICOM is a standard directed at addressing technical interoperability issues in medical imaging. It is not a framework or architecture for achieving a useful clinical workflow. RSNA's
initiative layered on top of DICOM (and ) provides this final piece of the medical imaging interoperability puzzle.
There are some derivations from the DICOM standard into other application areas. These include:
DICONDE - Digital Imaging and Communication in Nondestructive Evaluation, was established in 2004 as a way for
manufacturers and users to share image data.
DICOS - Digital Imaging and Communication in Security was established in 2009 to be used for image sharing in .
DICOM differs from some, but not all, data formats in that it groups information into . That means that a file of a chest x-ray image, for example, actually contains the patient ID within the file, so that the image can never be separated from this information by mistake. This is similar to the way that image formats such as
can also have embedded tags to identify and otherwise describe the image.
A DICOM data object consists of a number of attributes, including items such as name, ID, etc., and also one special attribute containing the image pixel data (i.e. logically, the main object has no "header" as such: merely a list of attributes, including the pixel data). A single DICOM object can have only one attribute containing pixel data. For many modalities, this corresponds to a single image. But note that the attribute may contain multiple "frames", allowing storage of cine loops or other multi-frame data. Another example is NM data, where an NM image, by definition, is a multi-dimensional multi-frame image. In these cases, three- or four-dimensional data can be encapsulated in a single DICOM object. Pixel data can be compressed using a variety of standards, including , , , and .
(zip) compression can be used for the whole data set (not just the pixel data), but this has rarely been implemented.
DICOM uses three different Data Element encoding schemes. With Explicit Value Representation (VR) Data Elements, for VRs that are not OB, OW, OF, SQ, UT, or UN, the format for each Data Element is: GROUP (2 bytes) ELEMENT (2 bytes) VR (2 bytes) LengthInByte (2 bytes) Data (variable length). For the other Explicit Data Elements or Implicit Data Elements, see section 7.1 of Part 5 of the DICOM Standard.
The same basic format is used for all applications, including network and file usage, but when written to a file, usually a true "header" (containing copies of a few key attributes and details of the application which wrote it) is added.
To promote identical grayscale image display on different monitors and consistent hard-copy images from various printers, the DICOM committee developed a lookup table to display digitally assigned pixel values. To use the DICOM grayscale standard display function (GSDF), images must be viewed (or printed) on devices that have this lookup curve or on devices that have been calibrated to the GSDF curve.
Extracted from Chapter 6.2 of PS 3.5-2007:  PDF (1.43 )
Value Representation
Description
Application Entity
Age String
Attribute Tag
Code String
Decimal String
Floating Point Single (4 bytes)
Floating Point Double (8 bytes)
Integer String
Long String
Other Byte
Other Float
Other Word
Person Name
Short String
Signed Long
Sequence of Items
Signed Short
Short Text
Unique Identifier
Unsigned Long
Unsigned Short
Unlimited Text
In addition to a Value Representation, each attribute also has a Value Multiplicity to indicate the number of data elements contained in the attribute. For character string value representations, if more than one data element is being encoded, the successive data elements are separated by the backslash character "\".
DICOM consists of many different services, most of which involve transmission of data over a network, and the file format below is a later and relatively minor addition to the standard.
The DICOM Store service is used to send images or other persistent objects (structured reports, etc.) to a
(PACS) or workstation.
The DICOM storage commitment service is used to confirm that an image has been permanently stored by a device (either on redundant disks or on backup media, e.g. burnt to a CD). The Service Class User (SCU: similar to a ), a modality or workstation, etc., uses the confirmation from the Service Class Provider (SCP: similar to a ), an archive station for instance, to make sure that it is safe to delete the images locally.
This enables a workstation to find lists of images or other such objects and then retrieve them from a picture archiving and communication system.
This enables a piece of imaging equipment (a modality) to obtain details of patients and scheduled examinations electronically, avoiding the need to type such information multiple times (and the mistakes caused by retyping).
A complementary service to Modality Worklist, this enables the modality to send a report about a performed examination including data about the images acquired, beginning time, end time, and duration of a study, dose delivered, etc. It helps give the radiology department a more precise handle on resource (acquisition station) use. Also known as MPPS, this service allows a modality to better coordinate with image storage servers by giving the server a list of objects to send before or while actually sending such objects.
The DICOM Printing service is used to send images to a DICOM Printer, normally to print an "X-Ray" film. There is a standard calibration (defined in DICOM Part 14) to help ensure consistency between various display devices, including hard copy printout.
The off-line media files correspond to Part 10 of the DICOM standard. It describes how to store medical imaging information on removable media. Except for the data set containing, for example, an image and demography, it's also mandatory to include the File Meta Information.
DICOM restricts the filenames on DICOM media to 8 characters (some systems wrongly use 8.3, but this does not conform to the standard). No information must be extracted from these names (PS3.10 Section 6.2.3.2). This is a common source of problems with media created by developers who did not read the specifications carefully. This is a historical requirement to maintain compatibility with older existing systems. It also mandates the presence of a , the
file, which provides index and summary information for all the DICOM files on the media. The DICOMDIR information provides substantially greater information about each file than any filename could, so there is less need for meaningful file names.
DICOM files typically have a .dcm file extension if they are not part of a DICOM media (which requires them to be without extension).
type for DICOM files is defined by
as application/dicom.
type for DICOM files is org.nema.dicom.
There is also an ongoing media exchange test and "connectathon" process for CD media and network operation that is organized by the
organization.
is free Windows software for reading DICOM data.
Extracted from Chapter C.7.3.1.1.1 of PS 3.3-2011:  PDF (6.51 )
Description
Modality of type
Modality of type Biomagnetic Imaging
Modality of type Color Flow Doppler
Retired 2008
Modality of type Cinefluorography
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type Duplex Doppler
Retired 2008
Modality of type Diaphanography
Modality of type Digital Microscopy
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type General Microscopy
Modality of type Hard Copy
Modality of type Intra-oral Radiography
Modality of type
Modality of type
Surface Scan
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type Ophthalmic Photography
Modality of type Ophthalmic Mapping
Modality of type Ophthalmic Refraction
Modality of type Ophthalmic Visual Field
Modality of type Other
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type
Dose (a.k.a. RTDOSE)
Modality of type
Modality of type Radiographic Imaging (conventional film screen)
Modality of type Radiotherapy Image
Modality of type Radiotherapy Plan (a.k.a. RTPLAN)
Modality of type Radiotherapy Structure Set (a.k.a. RTSTRUCT)
Modality of type
Modality of type Secondary Capture
Modality of type Slide Microscopy
Modality of type Structured Reporting
Modality of type Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography
Retired 2008
Modality of type
Modality of type
Modality of type Videofluorography
Modality of type Visible Light
Modality of type
Modality of type External Camera (Photography)
DICOM have reserved the following
numbers by the
for DICOM over
(UDP). Since 104 is in the reserved subset, many operating systems require special privileges to use it.
for DICOM using
(ISCL) over TCP or UDP
2762 registered port for DICOM using
(TLS) over TCP or UDP
11112 registered port for DICOM using standard, open communication over TCP or UDP
The standard recommends but does not require the use of these port numbers.
According to a paper presented at an international symposium in 2008, the DICOM standard has problems related to data entry. "A major disadvantage of the DICOM Standard is the possibility for entering probably too many optional fields. This disadvantage is mostly showing in inconsistency of filling all the fields with the data. Some image objects are often incomplete because some fields are left blank and some are filled with incorrect data."
DICOM is a standard for handling, storing, printing, and transmitting information in medical imaging. The communication protocol is an application protocol that uses TCP/IP to communicate between systems. DICOM files can be exchanged between two entities that are capable of receiving image and patient data in DICOM format. The
(NEMA) holds the copyright to this standard. It was developed by the DICOM Standards Committee, whose members are also partly members of NEMA.
This article appears to be written like . Please help
by rewriting promotional content from a
and removing any inappropriate . (December 2014)
Health Level Seven (), is a non-profit organization involved in the development of international healthcare informatics interoperability standards.[1] "HL7" also refers to some of the specific standards created by the organization (e.g., HL7 v2.x, v3.0, HL7 RIM). The HL7 Strategic Initiatives document is a business plan for our products and services and was designed specifically to meet the business needs of its members and stakeholders. Derived from collaborative efforts with its members, government and non-government agencies and other standards development organizations, the Strategic Initiatives are five high-level organizational strategies that are supported by a detailed tactical plan with clearly defined objectives, milestones, and metrics for success.
Both of the standards are focused on the data exchange and the data compatibility. Among many standards for the syntax, HL7 and DICOM are most successful. However, everything could not be handled by HL7 solely. DICOM is good for radiology images, but, other clinical images are already handled by other ‘lighter’ data formats like , . So, it is not realistic to use only one standard for every area of clinical information.
Opening the HL7 and DICOM standards in order to foster the integrated use of persistent health information objects is proposed as a step towards the creation of the health information infrastructure.
(IHE) was founded in 1997 by members of the
(RSNA) and the
for the purpose of improving interoperability between information systems. The IHE initiative was charged with the task of using existing standards of health care data communication such as DICOM and
to improve exchange of medical information beyond the radiology department at the hospital level or health systems level. Just as radiologists were confronted in the past with imaging connectivity incompatibilities, entire health systems are continually faced with the task of connecting multiple disparate information systems in which the only reliable communications pathway is the paper printout.
The IHE working group is a panel made up of industry representatives from medical informatics and imaging vendors as well as medical professionals. Their primary focus is to develop a common information model of medical information exchange. The devised IHE technical framework consists of a common lexicon that defines specific medical information transactions using the existing standards of medical information exchange (DICOM and ). The specifics of these transactions have been worked out in great detail so that vendors have been free to independently develop solutions to meet the goals of the technical framework. In the year 2001 to 2002, 30 companies took part in the testing and implementation of the IHE demonstrations.
- a free, open source software package for image analysis and scientific visualization, with the integrated support of components of DICOM standard
- medical image viewer and DICOM network client for Linux and Windows
- Grassroots DICOM library for medical files
GDCM sample as PNG
Cross-platform DICOM viewer
- DICOM viewer for Windows
- Image processing application dedicated to DICOM images
- Lightweight,
DICOM store
- DICOM Viewer for Windows that runs from CD/DVD media without installation on Windows XP onwards
- supports .dic / .dicom for
type application/dicom
, a non-profit organization involved in the development of international healthcare informatics interoperability standards
, an industry sponsored non-profit organization based in the US state of Illinois
, nema.org.
. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 1: Introduction and Overview. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2006. p. 11.
Shiroma, J. T. (2006). An introduction to DICOM. Veterinary Medicine, , 19-20. Retrieved from
Mustra, M Delac, K Grgic, Mislav (September 2008). . ELMAR, 2008. 50th International Symposium. Zadar, Croatia. pp. 39–44.  .
Kimura, M; Ohe, K; Yoshihara, H; Ando, Y; Kawamata, F; Tsuchiya, F; Furukawa, H; Horiguchi, S et al. (1998). "MERIT-9: A patient information exchange guideline using MML, HL7 and DICOM". International Journal of Medical Informatics 51 (1): 59–68. :.  .
K?nig, H. (2005). "Access to persistent health information objects: Exchange of image and document data by the use of DICOM and HL7 standards". International Congress Series 1281: 932–7. :.  .
Flanders, A.E., Carrino, J.A., 2003. Understanding DICOM and IHE. Seminars in Roentgenology 38, 270–281.
Clunie, D.; Cordonnier, K. (February 2002). . . RFC 3240. .
- Standard formats including DICOM.
- Contains a long list DICOM software.
- DICOM is Easy.
: Hidden categories: