MRI images

[ktinkel]

I had an MRI today and the technician gave me a CD of the image data.

Came home, tried to view it, and could not. The CD says a PC is required, and when I open the CD I find files labeled Autorun.inf, ipp4isite.dll, iSite3_5.ocx, and iSiteMediaViewer.ext, which of course I cannot run on my Mac. (Though I guess I might be able to run them on my new iMac, if/when I set it up with Windows, which was not exactly in my plans.)

What I am wondering is whether a Windows-using, Photoshop-using person could view the images and save out versions that I could view. Anyone know anything about that? Anyone want to try? I can view the contents of the CD and could probably ZIP and e-mail them.

[Robin Springall]

Sure, KT. Zip 'em and bung 'em over via YouSendIt to pcgraphics@rpmuk.com and I'll have a shufti tomorrow. Probably too large for email.
Rx

[Steve Rindsberg]

Is there a subdirectory on the CD?

Autorun.inf is a little text file that tells Windows what to do when the CD is inserted.

The DLL and OCX files are program components.

Would the mediaviewer thingie actually be .EXE rather than .EXT? If so, that's a program.

It almost seems that it's all primed to look at something that isn't there?

[ktinkel]

Is there a subdirectory on the CD?

Autorun.inf is a little text file that tells Windows what to do when the CD is inserted.

The DLL and OCX files are program components.

Would the mediaviewer thingie actually be .EXE rather than .EXT? If so, that's a program.

It almost seems that it's all primed to look at something that isn't there?I should list the entire thing (and it is .exe; that was a typo).

Interesting: I see 8 items on the CD directory. But when I copy it, I pick up 10 items. Wonder how many others are hidden?

Autorun.inf
Help (w/many sub-items)
iSite3_5.ocx (not shown on CD but picked up by copying !!)
ipp4isite.dll
iSite3_5.ocx
iSiteMediaViewer.exe
Worklist (w/1 sub-item: Worklist.wl)
Stack (w/4 sub-items, all numerical)
Preferences (w/2 sub-items)
Autorun.inf (not shown but picked up in copy)

Any insights?

[BobRoosth]

Not really. I'd suggest making an ISO of the disk and sending that to one of us Windows users. Then we can burn an identical CD to look at.

[ktinkel]

Not really. I'd suggest making an ISO of the disk and sending that to one of us Windows users. Then we can burn an identical CD to look at.ISO? Not familiar with that one in this context.

Anyway, I am being silly. I can find a PC user here so I can see the scans. And I did just get a Windows-capable iMac (though it would be overkill if all I intend to do is look at an MRI scan for which I will probably get film copies anyway).

I just assumed the images would be in some basic B&W bitmap format (and they probably are; it is the viewer that is in the way) and that it would be cool to see them on my computer.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Interesting: I see 8 items on the CD directory. But when I copy it, I pick up 10 items. Wonder how many others are hidden?

Autorun.inf
Help (w/many sub-items)
iSite3_5.ocx (not shown on CD but picked up by copying !!)
ipp4isite.dll
iSite3_5.ocx
iSiteMediaViewer.exe
Worklist (w/1 sub-item: Worklist.wl)
Stack (w/4 sub-items, all numerical)
Preferences (w/2 sub-items)
Autorun.inf (not shown but picked up in copy)
>>>

Not sure I follow ... you mention 8 vs 10 items (shown/not shown) but two of the items on the list above are the same (the OCX and INF files)

What're the sub items in the Stack folder?

And the contents of the .INF file might be revealing (it's a simple ascii text file, open in any old editor, paste here; shouldn't be more than four or five lines).

BTW, a lot of these medical systems have their own proprietary image formats.

[ktinkel]

BTW, a lot of these medical systems have their own proprietary image formats.Groan. Why? Shouldn’t these just be B&W bitmaps?

Anyway, think I will start over.

Here is the complete list at the root level:
iSite3_5.ocx
Worklist
Autorun.inf
ipp4isite.dll
Preferences
Stack
iSiteMediaViewer.exe
HelpThis is what the .inf file contains:
[autorun]
open=iSiteMediaViewer.exe
icon=iSite.icoAnd these are the sub-items in the stack folder:2.16.840.1.113662.4.10.1.85485051.20071008. 14213433
1.2.74.13383169409.139.1633274521116543941
2.16.840.1.113662.4.10.1.85485051.20071008.1421343 3.dts
1.2.74.13383169409.139.1633274521116543941.dts
[By the way: the items in the stack folder are labeled as “Unix executable files.”]

Does that seem any more comprehensible? (Thanks for any insights.)

[Cristen Gillespie]

KT: [By the way: the items in the stack folder are labeled as “Unix executable files.”]

I wonder if inside the Stack folder are dicom files. Those are common to medicine, but they seem to have wrapped them up some way you can't get to them apart from this viewer thing. It seems odd they even gave them to you in the first place, since they aren't using cross-platform formats.

On the bright side, looking at your own MRI images probably will not mean anything to you either<G>

[ktinkel]

I wonder if inside the Stack folder are dicom files. Those are common to medicine, but they seem to have wrapped them up some way you can't get to them apart from this viewer thing. It seems odd they even gave them to you in the first place, since they aren't using cross-platform formats.

On the bright side, looking at your own MRI images probably will not mean anything to you either<G>Well, I imagine I can compare them to the films I got from the MRI two years ago. But no, I am no radiologist, that is for sure! Just thought it would be cool to see them.

I always ask for copies of everything. Doctors leave practices, or I could change doctors, and then would be left with no history. And the CD seemed so much easier to keep than the films, which are quite large.

[Steve Rindsberg]

>> Groan. Why? Shouldn’t these just be B&W bitmaps?

I've got a friend who works in a different branch of medical imaging. From what he tells me, these medical instrument manufacturers are hellbent on locking customers into their proprietary solutions. Image formats that only they can read play into this nicely.

http://www.stentor.com/ seems to be the owner of this thing.

It says on their site:

"Philips' core technology, iSyntax, was licensed from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), the country’s largest not-for-profit integrated health care system, in 1998. iSyntax™ is based on mathematical representations of images called wavelets."

Small world. That's where my friend used to work!

None of which is any help to you, of course. Easiest thing might be to find a friend with a Windows PC, toss the CD in and let it run.

[ktinkel]

Easiest thing might be to find a friend with a Windows PC, toss the CD in and let it run.I think you’re right.

I have a mild coincidence too: Jack used to work for Picker, designing tomographic and CT systems (in the 70s, before they were used as casually as they are today). Picker failed, everyone got laid off, and Philips ended up with rights to the technologies and the name.

That was back in 1980 or so, so it was a little shocking to see that my MRI — one of those new-fangled open ones — was being done with equipment labeled Picker.

Anyway I got the radiology report today and think I can wait to see the scans. If I don’t lose track of the CD, I mean!

[Steve Rindsberg]

Pickler ... odd name. You'd think they'd be in the embalming business instead, eh?

[BobRoosth]

ISO is the Windows extension for a CD image, one that can be used to burn an identical CD. I think the OS-X uses DMG for the same concept.

[ktinkel]

ISO is the Windows extension for a CD image, one that can be used to burn an identical CD. I think the OS-X uses DMG for the same concept.Gotcha! A disk image file. Sort of figured that is what you meant, but got lost in ISO, which is a standards organization but not one I associated with file types!

But would a PC user be able to do anything at all with a DMG? Rather doubt it — it must be like a Windows .exe file on a Mac: Useless.

[ktinkel]

Pickler ... odd name. You'd think they'd be in the embalming business instead, eh?Hah!

[Cristen Gillespie]

KT: I always ask for copies of everything. Doctors leave practices, or I could change doctors, and then would be left with no history.

That's really smart. I know I should be keeping my own records -- had quite a time this summer getting my son's from before we moved, so I know what a pita it can be to be without documentation. I've been too lazy, but my laziness cost me more time and effort later, so I may take a leaf from your book and start insisting they give me records.

[ktinkel]

That's really smart. I know I should be keeping my own records -- had quite a time this summer getting my son's from before we moved, so I know what a pita it can be to be without documentation. I've been too lazy, but my laziness cost me more time and effort later, so I may take a leaf from your book and start insisting they give me records.It really is a good idea.

I not only ask for copies for me, but if the test was ordered by a specialist, I specifically ask them to send a copy of the results to my primary or to another specialist who may have an interest. Trying to keep things from falling through cracks, you see.

[Werthers]

You could always go to an internet Cafe or ask a friend with a pc, but they might not have the programs to convert it to mac format, but it sounds like it's a standalone program (because of the .exe file) so the images are likely to be within the program and maybe hard to copy but you can always set the resolution to the highest then hit print screen and paste it into paint or photoshop (if the pc has it) and save it as a jpg etc.

[ktinkel]

You could always go to an internet Cafe or ask a friend with a pc, but they might not have the programs to convert it to mac format, but it sounds like it's a standalone program (because of the .exe file) so the images are likely to be within the program and maybe hard to copy but you can always set the resolution to the highest then hit print screen and paste it into paint or photoshop (if the pc has it) and save it as a jpg etc.My orthopedist let me look over his shoulder. The images were small as he viewed them, and pretty much nonsense to me at a glance, so I would still like to see them one day with time to understand what I see.

A PC-using friend is likely to visit soon, and I will get a chance.

A screen capture might do the trick. Have to look into that.

Thanks. And nice to see you on the forum.

[Howard Allen]

Kathleen--

Whenever I run up against a file I don't recognize, I try these things:

1) Launch Graphic Converter and try the "Open" command to see if any of the files on the CD are NOT greyed-out. There's a remote possibility that one of the image files might be convertible.

2) Another tactic is to Google the name of that image viewer, and see if there isn't some sort of free viewer plugin or app for OSX, either from the manufacturer or as freeware/shareware. This is often the case--I'm thinking of LizardTech's ExpressView plugin for geographic mapping images, and a host of others available for viewing proprietary file formats. There are a lot of Macs used in science labs, and I'd think it's a good possibility there's something available to open many of these medical image files.

BTW: those "Unix executable file" flags from OSX are often bogus--when OSX sees an extension it doesn't recognize, it will often call it a "Unix executable file" just as a default. I've seen this several times. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Werthers]

I'm just glad to find a forum with helpful people and with people in it. I went to one and It had very few members and lots of spammers and even spam bots I think (reminds me of femme bots from austin powers!).

[ktinkel]

I'm just glad to find a forum with helpful people and with people in it. I went to one and It had very few members and lots of spammers and even spam bots I think (reminds me of femme bots from austin powers!).We work hard to bar spammers and spam bots. We are a peaceful crowd here — just like to exchange information (and have a little fun) without worrying about that sort of junk.

[ktinkel]

Kathleen--

Whenever I run up against a file I don't recognize, I try these things:

1) Launch Graphic Converter and try the "Open" command to see if any of the files on the CD are NOT greyed-out. There's a remote possibility that one of the image files might be convertible.

2) Another tactic is to Google the name of that image viewer, and see if there isn't some sort of free viewer plugin or app for OSX, either from the manufacturer or as freeware/shareware. This is often the case--I'm thinking of LizardTech's ExpressView plugin for geographic mapping images, and a host of others available for viewing proprietary file formats. There are a lot of Macs used in science labs, and I'd think it's a good possibility there's something available to open many of these medical image files.

BTW: those "Unix executable file" flags from OSX are often bogus--when OSX sees an extension it doesn't recognize, it will often call it a "Unix executable file" just as a default. I've seen this several times. Take it with a grain of salt.Oooh — I forgot all about Graphic Converter. Next time I have a moment I will try that.

I think OSX was telling me it was a Windows .exe file, not Unix, but who knows. (The viewer on the CD requires Windows XT.)