Rad Tech Minutes 2019-11-11 to 2019-11-14
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Participants
Participants: - Andrei - Chris Lindop - Salt - Steve N. - Kevin - Jonathan - Kinson - Kevin Schap (CAP, IHE PaLM) - Antje - Wim - Elliot Silver - Sridhar B (Nuance) - Neil - Brad - David Kwan - Hamid - Charles Parisot
TF Maintenance decisions
Maintenance:
- CP approved for ballot
- CP-RAD-258
- CP-RAD-356
- CP-RAD-378
- CP-RAD-379
- CP-RAD-382
- CP approved for ballot
- CP cancelled
- CP-RAD-239
- CP-RAD-259
- CP cancelled
Notes on break up of RAD Tech Framework
TI Supplements final text / deprecation decisions
- DBT extension
- Technical Committee consensus has been achieved to promote the DBT Extension too Final Text, see DBT Extension Evaluation
- IID
- It is proposed that the profile is not advanced to the Final Text until CPs 349 and 364 against it are finalized.
- MAWF
- Steve to draft Final Text evaluation for SWF.b FT Evaluation
Kickoff Evaluations
AI Workflow
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
- Currently reconstituting the Simple Case (scan through result distribution)
- Thinking through variants on the simple case
- Some open discussion around which places proxy, e.g. Orchestrator proxying for the Model to the local data systems
- Review the "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
- Mostly they got copied into Open Issues and that OI list has been reviewed and resolutions planned.
- (Didn't actually review the UP list from the proposal - think we got them all)
- Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
- Mostly seem right. The UPS-RS issue was scoped for no discussion, but we have spent some time.
- (Learning point: make sure resolutions during evaluation are carefully captured and clearly expressed)
- We've been trying hard to hold our scope management which has helped.
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
- Need to fully put the UPS-RS issue to bed
- Chose to use existing transactions on an existing standard (that is not yet widely implemented). The proposal could also have proposed to develop new transactions on a soon to be existing standard (FHIR Task), or develop new transactions on a standard we would have to standardize (). The latter would have refocussed this cycle work onto that transaction work instead of the workflow level we've been looking at.
- Kevin will help document the UPS-RS equivalents for the fields highlighted by Neil. That information should be covered in the Workitem Concept section or somewhere more normative if needed.
- Procedure update has some questions around how AI-driven worklist reprioritization should work - who decides what, what need to be communicated, how is that encoded.
- A number of sections that need technical content, but it seems like we have an understanding of what goes there.
- Need to fully put the UPS-RS issue to bed
- Describe potential practical issues
- Some of todays AI Models are used to being handed PNG files. It will be a step up to do what we are describing.
- Haven't really described how our framework applies to the current pattern of AI platform products. (May be covered in Actor Descriptions)
- AI Models being in the cloud vs locally deployed might involve some practicalities we dont have experience with yet, e.g. security and need for configuration/proxying
- Questions were raised about regulatory requirements/monitoring, but we are putting those a bit out of scope for now.
- Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
- Pretty much? Maybe think about questions we want to ask/highlight for the Public Commenter community
- Which open issues feel most risky
- Workflow is different from the data-push model
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
- Mostly OK.
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
- Keeps nudging to expand; we keep reining it back in...
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
- Can't drop anything. If we run out of time, simply don't publish this cycle and request again next cycle.
- Have the promised resources manifested?
- Mostly - Brad, Neil, Sridhar, Dave Kwan
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise? (e.g. each actor, user)
- AI Model developer, especially standalone. Users (radiologists) who will use multiple models. Users who will configure the logic on the Requesters (IIT? PACS admins? Integrator? Jon Shoemaker?)
- What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.
- Requester -
- Orchestrator - ???
- AI Model - ???
- Reporting Worklist - Visage, Nuance, GE, Change
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
- 1 mid-December, 1 mid-January
- (Joint with WG23 in Dec)
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.
AI Results
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
- None that I can think of. Narrow scope.
- Review the "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
- Yes. Resolved with relevant Concept sections etc.
- Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
- Basically yes. Actually used a bit less this meeting. Probably will use full slot next meeting.
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
- None currently visible. Mostly exploring practical product design issues to see if anything needs additional tech.
- Creating the example encodings for each primitive will be a bit of work. (consider both inline explanation, and actual sample objects in the Implementation Materials folder.
- Describe potential practical issues
- Navigation and presentation will be challenging for Displays.
- Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
- Seems complete
- Which open issues feel most risky
- Not an open issue, but it will be a step for the AI Models to implement the specified DICOM SOPs. Might want to encourage platform/proxies to help them with this. (and make the case you get to read these too to get ground truth)
- Another adoption risk is "conflict" between multiple standards activities (e.g. FHIR, ACR, local groups, etc)
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
- Well. A bit of time to spare this meeting.
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
- Good. Constraining scope creep.
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
- STOW AI Sketch, Consumer (not much of a savings)
- Have the promised resources manifested?
- Julian, Eliot, Dave Kwan, Sridhar, Jonathan, Andrei, Kinson, etc. (CAD, Displays, etc)
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
- Radiologists to vet the navigation and display requirements.
- What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.
- Evidence Creator - Nuance
- Image Manager - Vital, Visage, Change, GE, Siemens
- Image Display - Vital, Visage, Change, GE,
- Imaging Doc Consumer - Nuance,
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
- Yes, 1 mid-Dec, 1 mid-Jan. Will likely cancel one or both but hold the spot.
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage