Volume Rendering in Medical Applications:
We’ve got pretty images, what’s left to do?
Organizer:
Michael Meissner (Viatronix)
Panelists:
Bill Lorensen (GE Corporate Research),
Karel Zuiderveld (Vital Images),
Vikram Simha (Terarecon),
Rainer Wegenkittl (Tiani),
Michael Meissner (Viatronix)
Motivation and Key Issues
After more than a decade of research in the field of volume
graphics, the most groundbreaking volume rendering
algorithms and the necessary ingredients for meaningful
image synthesis are fairly well known. By ingredients, we
mean filters, gradient estimation, illumination,
classification, compositing schemes, etc. Substantial effort
has been used in accelerating these algorithms to
accomplish interactive or even real-time performance,
taking advantage of CPU based acceleration techniques
[1,2] or hardware acceleration using texture mapping or
special purpose hardware [3,4]. By combining these bits
and pieces, we are able to perform image synthesis at
reasonably interactive frame-rates. What is the implication
of this for the research community as well as for the
application areas? Where are the “unknowns” or needs that
still require research and in which direction are medical
applications heading?
The panel, assembling experts from well-known medical
visualization companies and research institutions, attempts
to address these items by answering some of the following
questions:
• Doctors and physicians are trained to gather
information from the original 2D image slices
originating from medical scanners. Is 3D image
synthesis appropriate/necessary for medical
application, and are there any benefits at all?
• What are the valuable research contributions that are
used in 3D medical visualization systems and which
issues are still unsolved?
• What are the research challenges for visualization in
the medical field, e.g., computer guided surgery,
diagnostic screening, treatment planning, etc.
• Where in medical applications could “non photo-
realism” [5] be applied, and what value could it add?
• Is the image quality as well as the frame-rate already
acceptable and of clinical value, e.g., for medical
analysis or medical diagnosis, and what are the current
limitations?
• What are the shortcomings that prevent volume
rendering from becoming an integral part of daily
hospital procedures?
• What are the novel features of the latest CPUs,
commodity graphics hardware, or other accelerators
that are valuable to medical applications?
• Are medical applications more restricted by image
processing and being accepted by insurance companies
than by visualization?
1. POSITION STATEMENTS
1.1 Bill Lorensen
Fifteen years ago, Pixar demonstrated interactive volume
rendering on their image computer. Yet, today, even though
processor speed has grown dramatically and algorithms
have improved, volume rendering is not routinely used in
most hospitals. Early technology adopters continue to
develop new applications and there has been some
penetration into second level hospitals, but the number of
radiologists that have accepted the technology is well
below 50%.
Several factors limit the acceptance of volume rendering in
clinical practice.
• Researchers typically have little connection with the
eventual users of their technology. Volume rendering,
(actually any 3D visualization applications) is seldom
integrated into the radiologist’s workflow.
• For the most part, user interfaces are complicated and
not tied to the mainstays (2D display, filming,
archiving) of the radiologists.
• Many techniques have associated intellectual property
constraints that limit broad acceptance and use.
IEEE Visualization 2002 Oct. 27 - Nov. 1, 2002, Boston, MA, USA
0-7803-7498-3/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE