PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10342174

Content-based image retrieval in picture archiving and communications systems.

Abstract

We propose the concept of content-based image retrieval (CBIR) and demonstrate its potential use in picture archival and communication system (PACS). We address the importance of image retrieval in PACS and highlight the drawbacks existing in traditional textual-based retrieval. We use a digital mammogram database as our testing data to illustrate the idea of CBIR, where retrieval is carried out based on object shape, size, and brightness histogram. With a user-supplied query image, the system can find images with similar characteristics from the archive, and return them along with the corresponding ancillary data, which may provide a valuable reference for radiologists in a new case study. Furthermore, CBIR can perform like a consultant in emergencies when radiologists are not available. We also show that content-based retrieval is a more natural approach to man-machine communication.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Qi, W E Snyder. 1999. Content-based image retrieval in picture archiving and communications systems.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03168763

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗