In the Fourier tutorial there are a couple of methods used to try and calculate the distance between slices. The first method is to take the delta between two slice locations.
\n\nThe tutorial mentions that the reason is that some fields are missing in some images due to inconsistencies in MRI equipment. However, I've scanned all the SAX images from both the training and validation set and none of them appear to be missing the slice location field.
\n\nAm I missing something else? Should we expect the final data set to be more incomplete than the two we've been given so far? Is this just a general statement that doesn't really apply to the data for this competition?
", "messages": [ { "id": "102398", "postDate": "12/22/2015 07:54:47", "content": "In the Fourier tutorial there are a couple of methods used to try and calculate the distance between slices. The first method is to take the delta between two slice locations.
\n\nThe tutorial mentions that the reason is that some fields are missing in some images due to inconsistencies in MRI equipment. However, I've scanned all the SAX images from both the training and validation set and none of them appear to be missing the slice location field.
\n\nAm I missing something else? Should we expect the final data set to be more incomplete than the two we've been given so far? Is this just a general statement that doesn't really apply to the data for this competition?
", "rawMarkdown": "In the Fourier tutorial there are a couple of methods used to try and calculate the distance between slices. The first method is to take the delta between two slice locations.\r\n\r\nThe tutorial mentions that the reason is that some fields are missing in some images due to inconsistencies in MRI equipment. However, I've scanned all the SAX images from both the training and validation set and none of them appear to be missing the slice location field. \r\n\r\nAm I missing something else? Should we expect the final data set to be more incomplete than the two we've been given so far? Is this just a general statement that doesn't really apply to the data for this competition?", "votes": null }, { "id": "109076", "postDate": "02/23/2016 01:55:06", "content": "Good question. :O
\n\nMaybe it's not possible to determine the volume for images without these data
", "rawMarkdown": "Good question. :O \r\n\r\nMaybe it's not possible to determine the volume for images without these data", "votes": null }, { "id": "109433", "postDate": "02/26/2016 01:17:37", "content": "I asked about this some time ago and there is an answer by William Cukierski about that there.. (SliceLocation is present)...
", "rawMarkdown": "I asked about this [some time ago][1] and there is an answer by William Cukierski about that there.. (SliceLocation is present)...\r\n\r\n\r\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/second-annual-data-science-bowl/forums/t/18402/availability-of-slicelocation-metadata", "votes": null }, { "id": "109435", "postDate": "02/26/2016 01:28:58", "content": "If i remember, these values can not exists in the DICOM default file format, because DICOM have many fields that not are required.
\n\nThing about the JPEG photos, this file format have fields to write the year and location of the photo, however it's not required and, in general, only professionals use it.
", "rawMarkdown": "If i remember, these values can not exists in the DICOM default file format, because DICOM have many fields that not are required.\r\n\r\nThing about the JPEG photos, this file format have fields to write the year and location of the photo, however it's not required and, in general, only professionals use it.", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 109076, "author_name": "alvaroosvaldo", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/23/2016 01:55:06", "content": "Good question. :O
\n\nMaybe it's not possible to determine the volume for images without these data
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 109433, "author_name": "romualdj", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/26/2016 01:17:37", "content": "I asked about this some time ago and there is an answer by William Cukierski about that there.. (SliceLocation is present)...
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 109435, "author_name": "alvaroosvaldo", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/26/2016 01:28:58", "content": "If i remember, these values can not exists in the DICOM default file format, because DICOM have many fields that not are required.
\n\nThing about the JPEG photos, this file format have fields to write the year and location of the photo, however it's not required and, in general, only professionals use it.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "102398": "In the Fourier tutorial there are a couple of methods used to try and calculate the distance between slices. The first method is to take the delta between two slice locations.\r\n\r\nThe tutorial mentions that the reason is that some fields are missing in some images due to inconsistencies in MRI equipment. However, I've scanned all the SAX images from both the training and validation set and none of them appear to be missing the slice location field. \r\n\r\nAm I missing something else? Should we expect the final data set to be more incomplete than the two we've been given so far? Is this just a general statement that doesn't really apply to the data for this competition?", "109076": "Good question. :O \r\n\r\nMaybe it's not possible to determine the volume for images without these data", "109433": "I asked about this [some time ago][1] and there is an answer by William Cukierski about that there.. (SliceLocation is present)...\r\n\r\n\r\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/second-annual-data-science-bowl/forums/t/18402/availability-of-slicelocation-metadata", "109435": "If i remember, these values can not exists in the DICOM default file format, because DICOM have many fields that not are required.\r\n\r\nThing about the JPEG photos, this file format have fields to write the year and location of the photo, however it's not required and, in general, only professionals use it." }, "source": "meta" }