Difference between revisions of "CTSC:ARRA.012610"
From NAMIC Wiki
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* Ron Kikinis | * Ron Kikinis | ||
* Jesse Wei | * Jesse Wei | ||
| + | * Karl Helmer | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | * DICOM conformance statement of each PACS | ||
| + | ** The goal is to make sure that each PACs has the right functionality so we can be sure that the functions we are building are working against the different PACS. | ||
| + | ** Sometimes the statement might be something difficult to manipulate. | ||
| + | ** The persons responsible for this task are: | ||
| + | *** Steve Piper (mi2b2) | ||
| + | *** Jesse Wei (BIDMC) | ||
| + | *** Bill Tellier and Paul Lamonica (CHB) | ||
| + | *** Katie Andriole (BWH), to be confirmed | ||
| + | *** Thomas Schultz (MGH) | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Obtain samples from DICOM queries: | ||
| + | ** CFIND, CGET, CECHO and CCANCEL | ||
| + | ** Steve will be the one to understand what we want from the DICOM conformance statement | ||
| + | ** Important considerations: | ||
| + | *** Hierarchical versus relational CFIND. The first one is the standard, you need to know who the patient is before getting the images then the serie that has the modality in it. The second one is more flexible. | ||
| + | *** Understanding use of accession numbers in CFIND statement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Put phantoms into mi2b2 test PACS system on cloud computing infrastructure: | ||
| + | ** We want to get images from each PACS from the different institutions. In the interest of patient privacy, we will use phantoms. | ||
| + | ** We have to check that there are phantoms available and that the info in the dICOM header is intact: | ||
| + | ** The persons responisble for this task are: | ||
| + | *** Jesse Wei (BIDMC) | ||
| + | *** Bill Tellier (CHB) | ||
| + | *** Mark Anderson (BWH) | ||
| + | *** to be designated (MGH) | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 03:23, 2 February 2010
Home < CTSC:ARRA.012610Back to CTSC:ARRA supplement
Agenda
i2b2 to XNAT to DICOM architecture and workflow
Harvard Catalyst Medical Informatics group Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010
In attendance:
- Valerie Humblet
- Mike Mendis
- Shawn Murphy
- Bill Tellier
- Mark Anderson
- Randy Gollub
- Yong Gao
- Wendy Plesniak
- Alex Zeitsev
- Charles McGow
- Dan Marcus
- Ron Kikinis
- Jesse Wei
- Karl Helmer
- DICOM conformance statement of each PACS
- The goal is to make sure that each PACs has the right functionality so we can be sure that the functions we are building are working against the different PACS.
- Sometimes the statement might be something difficult to manipulate.
- The persons responsible for this task are:
- Steve Piper (mi2b2)
- Jesse Wei (BIDMC)
- Bill Tellier and Paul Lamonica (CHB)
- Katie Andriole (BWH), to be confirmed
- Thomas Schultz (MGH)
- Obtain samples from DICOM queries:
- CFIND, CGET, CECHO and CCANCEL
- Steve will be the one to understand what we want from the DICOM conformance statement
- Important considerations:
- Hierarchical versus relational CFIND. The first one is the standard, you need to know who the patient is before getting the images then the serie that has the modality in it. The second one is more flexible.
- Understanding use of accession numbers in CFIND statement.
- Put phantoms into mi2b2 test PACS system on cloud computing infrastructure:
- We want to get images from each PACS from the different institutions. In the interest of patient privacy, we will use phantoms.
- We have to check that there are phantoms available and that the info in the dICOM header is intact:
- The persons responisble for this task are:
- Jesse Wei (BIDMC)
- Bill Tellier (CHB)
- Mark Anderson (BWH)
- to be designated (MGH)
