Difference between revisions of "AHM2013-Real World DICOM"
From NAMIC Wiki
(→Topics) |
(Removed patient hierarchy topic due to the separate breakout session) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[AHM_2013|Back to | + | [[AHM_2013#Agenda|Back to AHM_2013 Agenda]] |
==Panel== | ==Panel== | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
| − | * [https://www.assembla.com/spaces/slicerrt/tickets/36#/activity/ticket:] | + | * [https://www.assembla.com/spaces/slicerrt/tickets/36#/activity/ticket: assembla slicer ticket #36] |
| − | * [https://www.assembla.com/spaces/slicerrt/tickets/25#/activity/ticket:] | + | * [https://www.assembla.com/spaces/slicerrt/tickets/25#/activity/ticket: assembla slicer ticket #25] |
Latest revision as of 18:49, 8 January 2013
Home < AHM2013-Real World DICOMBack to AHM_2013 Agenda
Contents
Panel
- Steve
- Jim
- Andras
- Csaba
- Greg
- Andrey
(Everyone with an interest in this topic is welcome)
Background
The DICOM standard is big and complicated. And yet, it only describes one aspect of what we commonly call "DICOM Data" because in the real world, software packages ignore the inconvenient or incomplete parts of the spec and implement something that "works for them". We see this repeated in many areas: RT, Diffusion, fMRI, Structured Reporting, Text Encodings, Deidentification...
Topics
- How to characterize Real World DICOM so that we can effectively write code that works with it
- Example data from the wild
- Use cases that lead to non-standard data
- How do other systems deal with this kind of data
- What would we like to see in the NA-MIC software to help us deal with it
