Rad Tech Minutes 2020-02-08-12

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Monday, February 8, 2021: 8:15 - 5:00 pm Central Time (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:15 - 08:30: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (2)
  • Reviewed and edited document.
S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (0 due to deferring to S3)
  • Defer to S3
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (2)
  • Brad is the keeper of the document. Committee members can make edits in their own document and send to Brad to consolidate into one document.
S3: 13:45 – 15:45 Maintenance (2.5)
  • Reviewed and Assigned two submitted CPs:
    • CP-RAD-459 SOLE: fix inconsistency of the audit event example
    • CP-RAD-460 XCA-I Clarify IIG behavior in local community Reviewed and completed CP-RAD-456 - Enterprise Identity Option - Issuer of Other Patient ID
    • Reviewed CP-RAD-453 - Clarify Implicit Post-processing Workflow
S4: 16:00 - 17:00: Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed
  • Time not needed

Tuesday, February 9, 2021: 8:45 am - 3:00 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00am AI Whitepaper (3)
  • Review of updates.
S1: 10:00 - 11:00am Maintenance (3.5)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (5)
  • Brad will upload most updated paper to Google Docs (version 0.5.3)
  • Please label any updates with your name and use change tracking
  • Brad will update the document with all changes
Meeting adjourned at 13:20.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021: 8:15 am - 5:00 pm (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:15 - 08:30: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (4)
  • Add to maintenance section: Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (4)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (7)
  • Action for 2/11: Finish 3.1.9, read through blocks of 4 and content review of blocks 3.2 - 3.9; clinical use cases will require a bit of discussion
  • Action: Brad will upload updated document on Google Drive
S3: 13:45 - 15:45: Maintenance (6)
  • Review the IOCM update to handle undelete
  • Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
  • Review SOLE CP's on 2/11.
  • Add additional hour on Friday 2/12 agenda (11am-12pm CT)
Meeting adjourned at 4pm.

Thursday, February 11, 2021: 8:45 am - 5:00 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00: Maintenance (7)
  • Lynn reviewed CP-RAD-457 and will continue to work on.
  • Chris L. reviewed SOLE slides and will work on developing a CP
S1: 10:00 - 11:00: AI Whitepaper (8)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (10)
S3: 13:45 - 14:45: AI Whitepaper (11)
  • Goal at the end of this meeting is to have a document ready for Public Comment publication.
  • Reviewed all edits to date and uploaded version 5.6 to Google Drive for further review and edits.
  • Brad will be prepared to review version with committee on 2/12.


Friday, February 12, 2021: 8:45 am - 12:00 pm (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (5)
S1: 10:00 - 12:00: AI Whitepaper (12)
S2: 11:00 - 12:00: Post meeting profile review (see notes below)
S2: 12:00 - 12:45: Scheduling

Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessments

  • Profile Name: CAM
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • Essentially. We line-by-lined the document in the previous meeting and we line-by-lined every change made since then.
    • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Completely
    • Which open issues are risky, and why
      • None - mostly simple opinion questions. No radical impact items.
    • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
      • Yes
    • Which use cases need more input
      • None
    • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
      • None really
    • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
      • No debates really. A couple questions about attribute vs content queries.
    • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
      • Yes. Chose DIMSE.
    • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate DISCUSSION/text coverage/resolution?
      • Yes. (And chose not to do DICOMweb)
    • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
      • Yes. Right.
    • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
      • Mostly right. Would have been nice to do Phase 2 but that would have been more work.
    • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Right.
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • Good.
    • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
      • It's 3 simple transactions and 2 main use cases. Very simple. No need to drop.
    • Have the promised resources manifested
      • Yes
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
      • Infusion Mgr - (Tomo), CSIMed, <Bracco>, Medtron
      • Image Mgr - Phillips, GE, Siemens, Canon, Visage
      • Consumer - Canon, <Infinitt>
    • When will we have sample data/objects
      • Good question - TODO recruit creators - (Talk to Uwe)(See also the PS3.17 examples)(PixelMed validator does the TIDs)(Offis) - Post to Implementation Materials
    • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
      • <Bracco>, <UlrichMedical>, <JIRA>, <Nuance/Bayer?>, <REM Dose Reporters>
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
      • Yes, maybe slightly ahead
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Yes
    • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
      • None
    • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
      • No


Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment

  • Profile Name: AI Whitepaper
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • Nope. It's 100+ pages of (great) content. But also lots of wordsmithing
    • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Soonish
    • Which open issues are risky, and why
      • None really. It's a whitepaper. Wide open for comments.
    • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
      • Mostly TODO - would benefit from a pass to list what feedback we are looking for from readers.
    • Which use cases need more input - TODO all these should likely turn into Open Issue questions
      • N/A-ish, but what sections do we think are the weakest?
      • Need attention on Clinical Usage
        • especially to cover the breadth of Applications in 2.1
        • get more feedback on how hospital people envision AI being incorporated into their daily work (how do they expect to interact with it)
      • Need some similar attention on Respository/Dataset/Application
      • AI Application Packaging and Integration needs more attention
        • especially to address Transforms in more detail and confirm the target environment variations
      • The Feedback section could use more attention
      • Common Mechanics also not well reviewed
    • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
      • Mostly proceeding as planned
    • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
      • Lots of wordsmithing to do that we just don't have enough time for
      • Working through templates for sections and conforming to the templates - but was absolutely helpful - should have done explicitly earlier
      • Moving text to get it into the "right" section - lots of contributed text described topics in other sections.
      • Whitepaper structure sort of needs to be invented case-by-case, on-the-fly
    • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
      • Lots are. Many have been incorporated into the WP structure and content
      • The content for a few still needs more depth/completeness - will target asking PC reviewers to help flesh out
      • Haven't really gotten to a point of stability where we could easily vet AIR and AIW-I against the Whitepaper. Need to work on.
      • Will solicit PC input to resolve more.
    • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate discussion/text coverage/resolution?
      • Mostly yes.
      • "Include by reference" hasn't been explored in depth. Need more work.
      • Again - transforms needs text
      • Underallocated for Operational Use - should have recognized this as a more inherently complex part of the space. Real-world variability lives here.
      • Might need a little more detail on what feedback includes beyond "pass/fail" for each inference.
      • Also, more coverage of Continuous Learning
    • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
      • Need more. Relative balance is mostly right, but need a scaling factor to add more time.
    • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
      • Definitely useful as is, but a lot of effort.
      • We did avoid slipping into doing MaxEffort items. We stuck to the Min as described pretty well. But it was more effort than predicted.
      • Probably could have defined a minimum that was smaller than what we chose, but what we have it good.
      • Might have been good to prioritize the 3.x sections rather than work top to bottom during both development and review.
    • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Some things are left not fully done. Did at least a little of all parts, some parts are fully done, some are light to different degrees.
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • No.
      • Not fully. But it wasn't so much extra tasks, as it was time to go to full depth on each planned task.
      • (Although templates and planning might have been good)
      • There WAS a lot of re-framing of the whitepaper (which was very useful and part of the process)
    • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
      • 5. Potiential Profiles can be dropped
      • Appendices can be limited to what we have time for
      • 4. Entities can be kept to a minimum
      • If push comes to shove, will drop 4.x sections before dropping any 3.x sections
    • Have the promised resources manifested
      • Partial.
      • Lots of people showing up for Authoring Group. A few are good about contributing text that is in the IHE-Style (so doesn't need reworking).
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
    • When will we have sample data/objects
    • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
      • MITA AI is ready to review (Kevin - Zack)
      • SIIM is ready to review (Brad - Kathy Andriole)(Kevin - ML Cmte)
      • RSNA RIC (notify them before 22nd Feb Retreat)
      • WG-23 is ready to review (Brad - Brian)
      • ECR
      • ACR (make sure Brian circulates)
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
      • No.
      • Not fully. It's a big piece of work. It arrived with good overall structure.
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
      • No.
      • Not fully. Lots of good re-work was done but couldn't cover all the sections.
    • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
      • At least one to comment/approve for PC Mar 4 call at 11am Central 1.5 hrs.
      • Authoring Group will meet at least twice in next two weeks to finalize.
      • Will have to request full document review be done by TC members offline.
        • TODO Assign sections - Google signup sheet? - Have authors flag sections that need review the most
        • Remind TC to bring issues that NEED to resolve before PC on Mar 4, and save rest for PC submission.
    • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
      • Plan at least one temp
      • Week of March 29th (March 22 week is WG6)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2020-02-08-12&oldid=124317"