-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Is deid.dicom aquivalent to CTP's pixel.anonymizer.script? #63
Comments
Yes! Would you care to PR to update? Would be greatly appreciated! |
Sure!
It is likely that there several entries missing as the model I noticed was
quite old from 2013, so I will try to come up with a comprehensive list of
gaps.
…On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:15 AM Vanessa Sochat ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes! Would you care to PR to update? Would be greatly appreciated!
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#63 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ak2KXEHMehLWV_zhc-TV1Q2jXhDz3Vcfks5uaRcTgaJpZM4Wlchq>
.
|
Question: I have an example image which gets both blacklisted and greylisted with coordinates. It seems to hit this blacklist test: LABEL Burned In Annotation # (CTP)
With: "group": "blacklist",
|
hey @fimafurman ! The idea of the recipe is that you are intended to write your own criteria to supplement or replace the default. There is no perfect default that everyone would be happy with. If you need to change the above, you can freely do so and distribute your own file, or if you think it should be default, do a PR to change the default! Now to answer your questions:
|
I would assume that it tries to mirror CTP functionality which does attempt to make a decision for you. So my question is more what is the default behavior with such condition if there are no override rules? |
This default I had help developing with users that were actively invested in the filter criteria - honestly this is not something that I want to take responsibility for, and indeed I don't have the expertise. For this situation I would recommend that you figure out the filters that are missing / need to be changed, suggest fixes, and PR with them. If there are no "override rules" for something and it doesn't get flagged, it's not going to be flagged. I can't offer much more explanation than that - I'm not in the business of managing PHI or rules about them other than developing this initial default to really get users started, not enforce anything. Deid is not published or approved by any privacy board, so it's use at your own decision. |
Thanks - that's fair - I just wanted to understand a bit better how it behaves by default. I will play with it some more and based on testing, update the default recipe. Thanks! |
Sounds good. |
@fimafurman do you have any additions (logic for the parser) to contribute, or shall we close the issue? |
Yes. How would you like me to share it with you? |
Any way that works for you! The easiest is likely dropping the file you are using here, and then I can open a PR to add to deid. |
Attached below. I was surprised how incomplete the CTP published file is, and, as the result the deid, so we had to populate file fairly manually. If you know of any sources of complete scripts for CTP (for example) I would appreciate it. |
Excellent, thank you! I will get these integrated asap. I share the same sentiment - I was really surprised that "industry standard" was lacking so badly. I think it must be the case that centers add their own custom logic and don't share, because the culture (I've noticed) is fairly closed off when it comes to sharing code, etc. |
I noticed that deid.dicom is missing entries in CTP's pixel.anonymizer.script - is deid's deid.dicom config file modeled after CTP's script?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: