The first step for neuroimaging data analysis: DICOM to NIfTI conversion.

By Xiangrui Li, Paul Simon Morgan, John Ashburner, Jolinda C. Smith, C. Rorden. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2016

1,017 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BACKGROUND Clinical imaging data are typically stored and transferred in the DICOM format, whereas the NIfTI format has been widely adopted by scientists in the neuroimaging community. Therefore, a vital initial step in processing the data is to convert images from the complicated DICOM format to the much simpler NIfTI format. While there are a number of tools that usually handle DICOM to NIfTI conversion seamlessly, some variations can disrupt this process. NEW METHOD We provide some insight into the challenges faced with image conversion. First, different manufacturers implement the DICOM format differently which complicates the conversion. Second, different modalities and sub-modalities may need special treatment during conversion. Lastly, the image transferring and archiving can also impact the DICOM conversion. RESULTS We present results in several error-prone domains, including the slice order for functional imaging, phase encoding direction for distortion correction, effect of diffusion gradient direction, and effect of gantry correction for some imaging modality. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS Conversion tools are often designed for a specific manufacturer or modality. The tools and insight we present here are aimed at different manufacturers or modalities. CONCLUSIONS The imaging conversion is complicated by the variation of images. An understanding of the conversion basics can be helpful for identifying the source of the error. Here we provide users with simple methods for detecting and correcting problems. This also serves as an overview for developers who wish to either develop their own tools or adapt the open source tools created by the authors.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc106c28afacf4eb93512c7d0efabea5cfdce8a7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

  1. Stephen M. Smith
  2. Saâd Jbabdi
  3. Jesper L. R. Andersson
  4. Stamatios N. Sotiropoulos
  5. Mark Jenkinson
  6. Gwenaëlle Douaud
  7. Diego Vidaurre
  8. Paul M. Matthews

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

  1. Stephen M. Smith
  2. Saâd Jbabdi
  3. Jesper L. R. Andersson
  4. Mark Jenkinson
  5. Stamatios N. Sotiropoulos
  6. Hui Zhang
  7. Daniel C. Alexander
  8. Gwenaëlle Douaud

Citations in the corpus