CTSC:TTIC.062910

Home < CTSC:TTIC.062910

Agenda

Harvard Translational Imaging Consortium Meeting Minutes June 29, 2010

In attendance:

1. Consultations

still need a consultant with FSL routines expertise (David Salat not available, contacted Doug Greve at Martinos Center but he has not the right expertise)
new consultation #166: imaging of the TMJ (temporomandibular joint). Bob did some imaging of TNJ a while ago. He will work on this consultation.

2. Education program

Results from evaluation survey: evaluation survey went sent out by Michele Sinunu form Harvard Catalyst, the results are the following:

1. How did you hear about the Imaging course? (Select all that apply)
Harvard Catalyst website (35%)
Announcement e-mail (63%)
Colleague (2%)

2. How satisfied overall are you with the course?
Very Satisfied (38%)
Satisfied (40%)
Neutral (20%)
Unsatisfied(2%)
Very Unsatisfied

3. What level of experience do you have with the field of imaging?
Considerable (42%)
Some (44%)
Little (9%)
None (5%)

4. The level at which this course was taught was:
Too difficult
Too easy (22%)
Just right (78%)

More about functional brain MRI techniques (including tractography and spectroscopy) with more practical examples.
I would have re-organized the order of the talks in the course. It seems odd to have the talk on actual image acquisition to be 2nd. 2. In addition, the level with which that particular class was taught seemed disparate with the other courses. 3. Although it was interesting to see what other investigators were doing and what was possible it may be better to have a quick survey of all the different possibilities of working with imaging and the services offered with examples for some. The applicability of the talk was somewhat questioned.
I would appreciate more courses that cover imaging algorithms and tools.
The course was too much focused on specific applications/research projects. It should explain more the general principles and methods.
should have more clinical appplication in stroke patient.
while the course was taught at a good level, there were numerous delays due to problems with the presentation and /or the electronics.
Loved the course. MS-talk was a bit too specific for MS database, with little imaging content. First talk was fantastic. Collaborations were encouraged - however, when following up on this per email, no response.. was a bit disappointing..
More about the special types of statistical and data analysis (the nitty gritty)-- though probably this is best learned from a grad student in a lab.

The course is not about how researchers use imaging in their specific cancer research. Rather, the speakers should give the audience general understanding, background, and future directions of imaging in cancer research. If any of the speakers intends to do a more specific speech, this information should be clearly shown in the announcement email.

Lifecycle of image data should be first talk.
Lectures should address the fundamental differences between imaging modalities (based on physical proprieties, how a mode is chosen to study different diseases, what can and cannot be detected. (Note: Comment came form someone with considerable imaging experience)
Great to have hands-on workshops
Talk more about links between basic research and clinical practice (more translational topics)
I really enjoyed the talks, very nicely organized, good resources to know.
Prepare hands-out before the course
Optical imaging talk was very specific; it did not match the general theme.