RECORD
State of the Practice for Medical Imaging Software
Software Engineering · Submitted 20 May 2024
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Generally, MI software is in a healthy state as shown by the following: we observed 88% of the documentation artifacts recommended by research software development guidelines, 100% of MI projects use version control tools, and developers appear to use the common quasi-agile research software development process.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We selected 29 medical imaging projects from 48 candidates, assessed 10 software qualities by answering 108 questions for each software project, and interviewed 8 of the 29 development teams. Based on the quantitative data, we ranked the MI software with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The four top-ranked software products are 3D Slicer, ImageJ, Fiji, and OHIF Viewer. Generally, MI software is in a healthy state as shown by the following: we observed 88% of the documentation artifacts recommended by research software development guidelines, 100% of MI projects use version control tools, and developers appear to use the common quasi-agile research software development process. However, the current state of the practice deviates from the existing guidelines because of the rarity of some recommended artifacts, low usage of continuous integration (17% of the projects), low use of unit testing (about 50% of projects), and room for improvement with documentation (six of nine developers felt their documentation was not clear enough). From interviewing the developers, we identified five pain points and two qualities of potential concern: lack of development time, lack of funding, technology hurdles, ensuring correctness, usability, maintainability, and reproducibility. The interviewees proposed strategies to improve the state of the practice, to address the identified pain points, and to improve software quality. Combining their ideas with ours, we have the following list of recommendations: increase documentation, increase testing by enriching datasets, increase continuous integration usage, move to web applications, employ linters, use peer reviews, design for change, add assurance cases, and incorporate a "Generate All Things" approach.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We selected 29 medical imaging projects from 48 candidates, assessed 10 software qualities by answering 108 questions for each software project, and interviewed 8 of the 29 development teams. | method 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.03 | asserted 0.99 |
| s1 | Based on the quantitative data, we ranked the MI software with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). | method 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.05 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | The four top-ranked software products are 3D Slicer, ImageJ, Fiji, and OHIF Viewer. | result 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.22 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | Generally, MI software is in a healthy state as shown by the following: we observed 88% of the documentation artifacts recommended by research software development guidelines, 100% of MI projects use version control tools, and developers appear to use the common quasi-agile research software development process. | result 0.75 | 0.94 | 0.23 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | However, the current state of the practice deviates from the existing guidelines because of the rarity of some recommended artifacts, low usage of continuous integration (17% of the projects), low use of unit testing (about 50% of projects), and room for improvement with documentation (six of nine developers felt their documentation was not clear enough). | result 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.18 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | From interviewing the developers, we identified five pain points and two qualities of potential concern: lack of development time, lack of funding, technology hurdles, ensuring correctness, usability, maintainability, and reproducibility. | result 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.06 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | The interviewees proposed strategies to improve the state of the practice, to address the identified pain points, and to improve software quality. | result 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.07 | asserted 0.99 |
| s7 | Combining their ideas with ours, we have the following list of recommendations: increase documentation, increase testing by enriching datasets, increase continuous integration usage, move to web applications, employ linters, use peer reviews, design for change, add assurance cases, and incorporate a "Generate All Things" approach. | future work 0.95 | 0.81 | 0.33 | asserted 0.94 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We selected 29 medical imaging projects from 48 candidates, assessed 10 software qualities by answering 108 questions for each software project, and interviewed 8 of the 29 development teams. Based on the quantitative data, we ranked the MI software with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The four top-ranked software products are 3D Slicer, ImageJ, Fiji, and OHIF Viewer. Generally, MI software is in a healthy state as shown by the following: we observed 88% of the documentation artifacts recommended by research software development guidelines, 100% of MI projects use version control tools, and developers appear to use the common quasi-agile research software development process. However, the current state of the practice deviates from the existing guidelines because of the rarity of some recommended artifacts, low usage of continuous integration (17% of the projects), low use of unit testing (about 50% of projects), and room for improvement with documentation (six of nine developers felt their documentation was not clear enough). From interviewing the developers, we identified five pain points and two qualities of potential concern: lack of development time, lack of funding, technology hurdles, ensuring correctness, usability, maintainability, and reproducibility. The interviewees proposed strategies to improve the state of the practice, to address the identified pain points, and to improve software quality. Combining their ideas with ours, we have the following list of recommendations: increase documentation, increase testing by enriching datasets, increase continuous integration usage, move to web applications, employ linters, use peer reviews, design for change, add assurance cases, and incorporate a "Generate All Things" approach.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.