Slicer 3 Ron Kikinis, Steve Pieper

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Slicer Goals  Stable, Usable, Cross Platform, End-User Software for Medical Image Analysis  3D Slicer Role in NA-MIC and NCIGT  Translation Platform to Deliver Medical Computing Technology to DBP Researchers  Provide Reference Implementation using NA-MIC Kit (End-to-End Open Source)  Outreach to New Applications

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, D Slicer Nutshell  3D Slicer Version 3 work began in 2005, first code 2006  Multi-platform, Using Kitware software engineering methodology  Includes by now 11 packages and toolkits (ITK, VTK, Python, Tcl/Tk, KWWidgets, IGSTK, ….)  Layered modular architecture: trunk, loadable modules, plug-ins  Support for external plug-ins from a repository

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Progress Since Jan 2009  Numbers Jan 2009  Subversion Commits: 8,317  Lines of Code*: 735,536  Bugs & Features: 239 Submitted 129 Fixed  Active Developers † : 53  3D Slicer Version 3.2  Released August 8, 2008 *: find. -iname \*.h -o -iname \*.cxx -o -iname \*.tcl -o -iname \*.java -o -name \*.py | grep -v svn | xargs wc (does not include libraries or modules in external repositories) †: svn log | grep "^r" | cut -d " " -f 3 | sort | uniq | wc Numbers June 2009 –Subversion Commits: 9,732 (1,415) –Lines of Code*: 791,101 –Bugs & Features: 605 Submitted 323 Fixed –Active Developers†: 59 3D Slicer Version 3.4 –Released May 2009

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Focus of 3D Slicer Development  Analysis and display of medical image data from single subjects:  Complex visualization capabilities; Real Time data  Segmentation and registration, DTI, DCE, Changetracking, mesh generation  FOSS without restrictions (BSD-style)  Useability  Workflows  Open source PACS + Clinical Database (XNAT)

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Roadmap  Next 12 months  Improved loading interface  Improvements to EM Segmentation  Improvements to Registration  Annotation and Markup capabilities  Workflow engine  Port to QT (now possible because of license change)  Full roundtrip capabilities with XNAT enterprise  Beyond 12 months  Will write a competitive renewal of NA-MIC  Widen focus to applications and solutions: neuro, cardiovascular, cancer, IGT, biology

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Dreams  Long term vision  To build more and more robust solutions for biomedical research  Provide an easy to use plug-in interface to attract third party development

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 Open-source status and activities  Source code availability: SVN open for checkouts, write access controlled, currently 50+ developers  License model: BSD-style license  Public process:  feature planning: professional core engineering, open weekly tcons, twice a year weeklong project weeks, ad hoc in person meetings  bug tracking: mantis bugtracker, regular bug squashing efforts  testing: Kitware methodology: cmake, ctest, cpack  Contributions:  all comers accepted, emerging plugin infrastructure will remove needs for “policing”  Community ...

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009  Community  Core funding by NIH center grants: NA-MIC, NAC, NCIGT, Catalyst  Algorithms, Engineering, Driving Biological Projects  Collaborations with funding component for core (currently about 8)  Other collaborations  Regular “Project Weeks” (twice a year since June 2005)  Last week at MIT: 125 participants, 71 projects  Segmentation, Registration, Diffusion, IGT, Informatics…  GE, Siemens, INRIA, Kitware, Harvard, MIT, UNC, UCLA, NCI… Open-source status and activities

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 What's most important for a common platform / toolkit?  Developers  Flat learning curve  Provide attractive infrastructure  Multi platform support  FOSS  Robust I/O  End Users  Flat learning curve  UIs for beginners and experts  Solve problems they care about  Large portfolio of solutions to be attractive to a large number of end users

CTK Workshop Heidelberg, June 29/30, 2009 How could a collaboration look like? Possible ways of collaboration (from loose to tight):  Regular workshops  Defined interfaces as in DICOM  Bridges between existing toolkits on different levels:  Data level: file-based exchange, inter-process communication,...  Code level: adapter classes, common base classes,...  “Common Toolkit”, composed from existing toolkits  “Common Toolkit”, implemented from scratch