Editorial: Reproducible research in medical imaging

Molecular Imaging and Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 395-396

  Choudhury, Kingshuk Roy ^a   Gibson, Ray ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Molecular Imaging and Biology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EDITORIAL; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PEER REVIEW;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84865463652     PISSN: 15361632     EISSN: 18602002     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11307-012-0569-8     Document Type: Editorial

References (18)

1. Ethics and values: "What is science?" http://www.aps.org/ policy/statements/99/6.cfm. Accessed 9 June 2012
2. An sweave demo; Literate programming in R; reproducible research. http://users.stat.umn.edu/~geyer/Sweave/. Accessed 9 June 2012
3. CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. http://www.consort- statement.org/. Accessed 9 June 2012
4. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Accessed 9 June 2012
5. Standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. http://www.stard-statement.org/. Accessed 9 June 2012
6. White LR et al (2011) Comparison of CT, PET, and PET/CT for staging of patients with indolent non-hodgkin's lymphoma: statistical errors in Fueger et al. (2009). Mol Imaging Biol. doi:10.1007/s11307-011-0513-3
7. Fueger BJ, Yeom K, Czernin J et al (2009) Comparison of CT, PET, and PET/CT for staging of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 11:269-274
8. Garman KS, Acharya CR, Edelman E et al (2011) Retraction for Garman et al., A genomic approach to colon cancer risk stratification yields biologic insights into therapeutic opportunities. Proc Nat Acad Sci 108:17569
9. Vandewalle P, Barrenetxea G, Jovanovic I et al (2007) Experiences with reproducible research in various facets of signal processing research. Proc IEEE Intl Conf Acoust Speech Signal Proc 4:1253-1256
10. Leveque R (2009) Python tools for reproducible research on hyperbolic problems. Comput Sci Eng 11:19-27
11. Gentleman R (2004) Reproducible research: a bioinformatics case study. Statist Appl Genet Molec Biol4. doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1034
12. Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative [http://adni.loni.ucla.edu/]. Accessed 9 June 2012
13. Lung image database consortium [http://imaging.cancer.gov/program sandresources/informationsystems/lidc]. Accessed 9 June 2012
14. Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N et al (2009) Data sharing in genomics - re-shaping scientific practice. Nat Rev Genet 10:331-335
15. GenBank [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/]. Accessed 9 June 2012
16. Coombes KR, Wang J, Baggerly KA (2007) Microarrays: retracing steps. Nat Med 13:1276-1277, author reply 1277-1278
17. Piwowar H, Day R, Fridsma D (2007) Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS One 2:e308
18. Omenn GS et al (2012) Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington D.C.