# RFC : can this module have a place in SlicerVMTK?

**URL:** https://discourse.slicer.org/t/rfc-can-this-module-have-a-place-in-slicervmtk/31117
**Category:** VMTK
**Created:** [August 12, 2023, 5:20pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/rfc-can-this-module-have-a-place-in-slicervmtk/31117 "2023-08-12T17:20:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![chir.set](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/chir.set/32/66982_2.png) [@chir.set](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/chir.set)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2023, 5:20pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/rfc-can-this-module-have-a-place-in-slicervmtk/31117/1 "2023-08-12T17:20:04Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I’m wondering if this module, [Arterial calcification pre-processor](https://github.com/chir-set/Tools7/tree/master/ArterialCalcificationPreProcessor/), may be _moved_ to SlicerVMTK.

It grows an input diseased arterial lumen segment to isolate dense calcifications in the wall within a calculated intensity range and a specified margin.

From the surgical perspective, it _is_ very satisfactory, giving a focused feeling of what we’ll be dealing with.

From the technical perspective, it may be considered as a deviation from the ‘Vascular modeling’ paradigm, since it does segment nor describe a vascular tree. Additionally, this module does not use the VMTK libraries, but rather the ‘Segment editor’.

It has some limitations well described on the homepage, reasons for which it is termed as a ‘pre-processor’.

Thank you for any input.

@pieper @lassoan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![pieper](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/pieper/32/8_2.png) [@pieper](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/pieper)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2023, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/rfc-can-this-module-have-a-place-in-slicervmtk/31117/2 "2023-08-12T17:45:03Z")

</div>

Maybe other interested parties can chime in, but I’m generally in favor of extensions having broader sets of generally related features rather than having just one or two modules. This makes things easier to manage IMO. So that would be a yes to your idea @chir.set .

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![chir.set](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/chir.set/32/66982_2.png) [@chir.set](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/chir.set)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2023, 3:22pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/rfc-can-this-module-have-a-place-in-slicervmtk/31117/3 "2023-08-13T15:22:20Z")

</div>

> [@pieper](#):
>
> So that would be a yes

The module is merged in [#94](https://github.com/vmtk/SlicerExtension-VMTK/pull/94).

Thank you for your support @pieper.