Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!rutgers!rochester!PT!cadre!sean
From: sean@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Sean McLinden)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: CT image files format
Message-ID: <798@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: Sat, 5-Sep-87 10:39:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.798
Posted: Sat Sep  5 10:39:59 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Sep-87 06:19:39 EDT
References: <6949@dartvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Sean McLinden)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 64

In article <6949@dartvax.UUCP> alex@dartvax.UUCP (Alex Hartov) writes:
>>In article <3285@ncoast.UUCP> you write:
>>> I would like to know if anyone has some information to share concerning
>>>CT (aka CAT SCAN) file formats produced on GE systems.
>>
>>Well, is that something I would like to know! I have some tapes, but
>>have never been able to decipher them. If you get any information, please
>>forward them to me, or post in comp.graphics. Hope it's not proprietary :-(
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>/Per Emanuelsson
>

[What followed was a description of of an effort to decode data obtained]
[from a GE 8800 CT Scanner						]


As a matter of fact, that information IS proprietary (in spite of the
fact that it is widely known).

I have an objection to discussions such as these for the following reasons.
Many people are working with data obtained from GE and Seimens scanners in
many places across the country. I cannot speak for Seimens but in the case
of General Electric, they were more than happy to supply us with a description
of their Image File Format in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement.
Since that time we have successfully worked with hundreds of images and
GE has made no attempt to restrict our use of that information (we have
never violated the non-disclosure agreement). In addition, we have been
free to exchange information with other sites obligated by the same type
of agreement, so that our research has never been hindered by a lack
of information.

It disturbs me to see people posting information derived from a proprietary
format when access to that information under controlled conditions is
nearly unrestricted. General Electric (I neither work with them or for them)
has been exceptionally fair with respect to supporting legitimate research
and efforts to circumvent what amounts to minimal restrictions on information
jeopardizes the continued goodwill between industry and academia with regard
to sharing proprietary information (at the other extreme is DEC; has anyone
ever tried to get a source license, or even a technical description of
LAT?).

It is also the case that whoever operated the scanner from which the
data you used was obtained had a contract with GE to prevent unauthorized
disclosure of the data and tapes. These, after all, are not only proprietary,
but also are parts of a patient's medical record, and as such, are a matter
of professional confidence between the patient and the health care system.
Strictly speaking, the disclosure of human CT scans derived from a medical
context would require consent from the patient.

I mention this only because as more and more commercial applications are
being found for research information, access to that information is becoming
increasingly limited. In the long run this trend may threaten the ability of
academic centers to provide research and training opportunities at the
forefront of technology. The trust relationship between academic areas
and industry is essential to continued superiority of our educational
system. It would be a shame to see it jeopardized by what are probably
well-intentioned but misdirected efforts to provide access to proprietary
information outside well-established channels.

Sean McLinden
Decision Systems Laboratory
University of Pittsburgh