Back

Steps on the path to clinical translation: a survey of the UK MRI community.

Markus, J. E.; Hubbard Cristinacce, P. L.; Punwani, S.; O'Connor, J. P.; Mills, R.; Yanez Lopez, M.; Grech Sollars, M.; Fasano, F.; Waterton, J. C.; Thrippleton, M. J.; Hall, M. G.; Francis, S. T.; Statton, B.; Murphy, K.; So, P.-w.; Hyare, H.

2024-12-22 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.12.20.24319456 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeOur goal was to understand the barriers and challenges to clinical translation of quantitative MR (qMR) as perceived by stakeholders un the UK. MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey on 7 key areas related to clinical translation of qMR, developed at the BIC-ISMRM workshop: "Steps on the path to clinical translation". Based on the 7 areas identified: (i) clinical workflow, (ii) changes in clinical practice, (ii) improving validation, (iv) standardisation of data acquisition and analysis, (v) sharing of data and code, (vi) improving quality management, and (vii) end-user engagement, a 40-question survey was developed. Members of BIC-ISMRM, MR-PHYSICS, BSNR and institutional mailing lists were invited to respond to the online survey over a 5-week period between September and October 2022. The responses were analysed via descriptive statistics of multiple-choice questions, Likert scores and a thematic analysis of free text questions. ResultsA total of 69 responses were received from predominantly research imaging scientists (69%) in numerous centres across the UK. Three main themes were identified: 1) the need to develop Consensus in terminology, decision making and validation; 2) an appreciation of uniqueness of each clinical situation and the need for Context Dependency; and 3) the importance of developing a Product Profile as early in development as possible. ConclusionEffective translation of qMR imaging and spectroscopic biomarkers to achieve their full clinical in the UK and internationally must address the differing needs and expectations of a wide range of stakeholders.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.