Computer-Enhanced Radiology: Imaging Transformed

  • Roger H. Shannon
Part of the Health Informatics Series book series (HI)

Abstract

Radiology is an information business. It is one of the core specialties of scientific medicine. In a sense, it is also a part of every direct care specialty, but it has differentiated into a separate field because of the special skills and knowledge that are required to correctly create and interpret images. In the early years, contrast materials dominated research in methodology. In 1953, S.I. Seldinger introduced the percutaneous catheter, giving easy, safer access to the recesses of the body. These catheters have become instruments of therapy as well as diagnosis. In 1972, Hounsfield launched computed tomography (CT) and digital imaging joined the armamentarium. From this platform and the stimulus that WWII gave technology, in general, other modalities such as ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were added to X-ray as means to probe the secrets of hidden tissues. From Roentgen’s straightforward imaging of extremities, there has grown, in little more than a century, an immensely complex, technology-intensive specialty. The technology has enabled visualization of three-dimensional virtual organs in motion. By superimposing the image on body parts, they can be viewed as if they were semitransparent. Interventionalists can then guide catheters and other instruments to destinations that were completely elusive just a few years ago.

Keywords

Compute Radiography Digital Radiography Radiology Information System Protect Health Information Application Service Provider 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shannon RH. Computer enhanced radiology: a transformation to imaging. In: Ball MJ, Douglas JV, O’Desky RI, Albright JW, editors. Healthcare Information Management Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991. p. 81–91.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grobstein C. Hierarchical order and neogenesis. In: Pattee HH, editor. Hierarchy theory: the challenge of complex systems. New York: George Braziller; 1973. p. 31–47.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hounsfield GN. A method of and apparatus for examination of a body by radiation such as x or gamma radiation. Patent specification 1283915. London, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gell G, Bauman RA. Large-scale PAC systems. In: Siegel EL, Kolodner RM, editors. Filmless radiology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999. p. 21–32.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robbins AH, Vincent, ME, Shaffer, K, Maietta, R, Srinivasan MK. Radiology reports: assessment of a 5,000 word speech recognizer. Radiology 1988; 167: 853–855.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dayhoff, RE, Maloney DL, Kenney JT, Fletcher RD. Providing an integrated clinical data view in a hospital information system that manages multimedia data. In: Clayton PD, editor. Fifteenth annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992. p. 501–505.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vizy KN. The roles of film in an increasingly computerized world. Invest Radiol 1989; 24: 503–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flagle CD. Economic analysis of filmless radiology. In: Siegel EL, Kolodner RM, editors. Film-less radiology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999. p. 113–136.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lohr KN, Rettig RA. Quality of care and technology assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press. 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shannon RH, Allman RA. Technology assessment using an informatics framework for medical imaging. In: Arenson RL, editor. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computer Applications in Radiology. Philadelphia: RISC; 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindberg DAB. Global information infrastructure. Int J Bio-Med Comput 1994; 34: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schramm C, Goldberg M. Multimedia radiological reports: creation and playback. J Digit Imaging 1989; 2: 106–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    HIMSS. 2002. HIMSS News. http://www.himss.org.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siegel EL, Channin DS. Integrating the healthcare enterprise: a primer. RadioGraphics 2001; 21: 1339–1341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kroken P. HIPAA: administrative requirements for privacy and security. ACR Bulletin; Sept. 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giger ML. Computer aided diagnosis in radiology. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jolesz FJ, Shtern F. The operating room of the future. Report of the National Cancer Institute Workshop. Imaging-guided stereotactic tumor diagnosis and treatment. Invest Radiol 1992; 27: 326–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zink S, Jaffe CC. Medical imaging databases. A National Institutes of Health Workshop. Invest Radiol 1993; 28: 366–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stewart BK. Next-generation PACS focus on intelligence. Diagn Imaging 1994; 81–84.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shannon RH, Allman RA. Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS): a medical device. In: Brody WR, Johnston GS, editors. Computer applications to assist radiology. Proceedings of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology (SCAR). Symposia Foundation; 1992. p. 48–54.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shannon RH. IMACS and radiology: defining the problems. In: Mun SK, Greberman M, Hendee WR, Shannon RH, editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Image Management and Communication. New York: IEEE; 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger H. Shannon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations