A Platform and Multisided Market for Translational, Software-Defined Medical Procedures in the Operating Room (OP 4.1): Proof-of-Concept Study.

BACKGROUND: Although digital and data-based technologies are widespread in various industries in the context of Industry 4.0, the use of smart connected devices in health care is still in its infancy. Innovative solutions for the medical environment are affected by difficult access to medical device data and high barriers to market entry because of proprietary systems. OBJECTIVE: In the proof-of-concept project OP 4.1, we show the business viability of connecting and augmenting medical devices and data through software add-ons by giving companies a technical and commercial platform for the development, implementation, distribution, and billing of innovative software solutions. METHODS: The creation of a central platform prototype requires the collaboration of several independent market contenders, including medical users, software developers, medical device manufacturers, and platform providers. A dedicated consortium of clinical and scientific partners as well as industry partners was set up. RESULTS: We demonstrate the successful development of the prototype of a user-centric, open, and extensible platform for the intelligent support of processes starting with the operating room. By connecting heterogeneous data sources and medical devices from different manufacturers and making them accessible for software developers and medical users, the cloud-based platform OP 4.1 enables the augmentation of medical devices and procedures through software-based solutions. The platform also allows for the demand-oriented billing of apps and medical devices, thus permitting software-based solutions to fast-track their economic development and become commercially successful. CONCLUSIONS: The technology and business platform OP 4.1 creates a multisided market for the successful development, implementation, distribution, and billing of new software solutions in the operating room and in the health care sector in general. Consequently, software-based medical innovation can be translated into clinical routine quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively, optimizing the treatment of patients through smartly assisted procedures.

Surgical data science - from concepts toward clinical translation.

Recent developments in data science in general and machine learning in particular have transformed the way experts envision the future of surgery. Surgical Data Science (SDS) is a new research field that aims to improve the quality of interventional healthcare through the capture, organization, analysis and modeling of data. While an increasing number of data-driven approaches and clinical applications have been studied in the fields of radiological and clinical data science, translational success stories are still lacking in surgery. In this publication, we shed light on the underlying reasons and provide a roadmap for future advances in the field. Based on an international workshop involving leading researchers in the field of SDS, we review current practice, key achievements and initiatives as well as available standards and tools for a number of topics relevant to the field, namely (1) infrastructure for data acquisition, storage and access in the presence of regulatory constraints, (2) data annotation and sharing and (3) data analytics. We further complement this technical perspective with (4) a review of currently available SDS products and the translational progress from academia and (5) a roadmap for faster clinical translation and exploitation of the full potential of SDS, based on an international multi-round Delphi process.

BIAS: Transparent reporting of biomedical image analysis challenges.

The number of biomedical image analysis challenges organized per year is steadily increasing. These international competitions have the purpose of benchmarking algorithms on common data sets, typically to identify the best method for a given problem. Recent research, however, revealed that common practice related to challenge reporting does not allow for adequate interpretation and reproducibility of results. To address the discrepancy between the impact of challenges and the quality (control), the Biomedical Image Analysis ChallengeS (BIAS) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of challenges. The BIAS statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a biomedical image analysis challenge regardless of field of application, image modality or task category assessed. This article describes how the BIAS statement was developed and presents a checklist which authors of biomedical image analysis challenges are encouraged to include in their submission when giving a paper on a challenge into review. The purpose of the checklist is to standardize and facilitate the review process and raise interpretability and reproducibility of challenge results by making relevant information explicit.

Author Correction: Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care.

In the original version of this Article the values in the rightmost column of Table 1 were inadvertently shifted relative to the other columns. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care.

International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future.