Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2019-11-11 to 2019-11-14"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
*** Need to fully put the UPS-RS issue to bed | *** 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. | **** 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. | *** 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. | *** A number of sections that need technical content, but it seems like we have an understanding of what goes there. |
Revision as of 13:37, 14 November 2019
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
Maintenance: CP approved for ballot
- CP-RAD-356
- CP-RAD-378
- CP-RAD-379
- CP-RAD-382
CP cancelled
Kickoff Evaluations
- Profile Name: 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.