Comments (7)
No objections, thank you for adressing it!
from dicognito.
Hi, @lmdulz. Thanks for your interest! I'm afraid my answer will not be super enlightening.
I was not aware of that table. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I can see I'll have to take a gander and see how it can offer ideas for improving dicognito.
I mostly did two things:
- sat and thought about what tags could leak information, looking at some of the Information Module Definitions.
- looked at an internal tool my company had written that had some deficiencies, to make sure I at least didn't lose functionality relative it.
That's it! I'm sure dicognito is deficient in a few ways relative the standard(s).
I'm happy to talk more about this if you like.
from dicognito.
Hey, @blairconrad thank you for the insights!
So are you seeing dicognito as a standalone tool or would you use it as addon to your internal companies' tool?
Without wanting to criticize your coverage, it appears to me that using dicognito without caring too much about the tags contained in ones Dicom-files, there still might be some that could leak information, that wouldn't be altered.
Have you thought about remodeling, so that you'd iterate over the table I added before and just check against the occurrence in the file? Like that you could reuse all the classes you created but stick to standardized anonymization regulations.
from dicognito.
Hi, @lmdulz.
I think of dicognito as a standalone tool (one could also use as a library, but I don't know if anyone has). It isn't specifically integrated with anything in the place I work.
there still might be some [tags] that could leak information
You're probably right.
Have you thought about remodeling, so that you'd iterate over the table I added before and just check against the occurrence in the file?
I had put it on the backburner, to be honest. Not due to lack of interest as such, but due to conflicting demands on my time.
I've re-scanned the table since you wrote last week, and am getting a slightly better understanding of it. In theory it's achievable, of course, and seems desirable, but I have a couple of concerns.
I worry that the changes are too extreme to make them useful for things I want to do with the objects, or that other clients want to. If someone's running a big trial on how some drug works when people have a certain allergy, and we remove the allergies, then that's going to be a problem.
Also, it looks like a lot of work. One would need to figure out in which case some of the attributes can be removed, replaced with 0-length values, or replaced with non-zero-length values, depending on context. And for those that need dummy values, a scheme has to be devised to provide such a value. For example, Acquisition Field Of View Label (0018,11BB), which I've no idea what it even is!
So I'm intrigued, but wondering if it would end up being a large investment of effort that ends up creating a tool that I can't even use…
from dicognito.
Hey @blairconrad,
which I've no idea what it even is
I have exactly the same problem, also I can't wrap my head around how one should replace thes tags with VR of Other Bytes/ Other Double/ Other ....
One would need to figure out in which case some of the attributes can be removed, replaced with 0-length values, or replaced with non-zero-length values, depending on context
To my undestanding, if you want to be strict, that's exactly defined in the table. "Table E.1-1a. De-identification Action Codes" has the meaning to all codes. In the "Table E.1-1. Application Level Confidentiality Profile Attributes" there is the Coulmn "Basic Prof." where the Codes are set how to handel each tag, which I think is the way to go to achiev full, standardized anonymization.
I worry that the changes are too extreme to make them useful for things I want to do with the objects, or that other clients want to.
But I can definitely relate, that if it comes to other questions that are not only depending on image data, individual work has to be done - I also couldnt say which commercial tools are following the confidentiality profiles from the standard.
Although it came to my mind, that if one is interested in the content of on or some specific tags, one could create a protector class, that is the first inside the element_handlers and just skips/ protects the tags that one defines in the anonymization procedure.
For my use case at the moment, I'll translate your dicognito into typescript as we need it to be faster in a browser environment. Of course I'll fully reference your work there.
Maybe when I'm done with that I'll try to wrap my head around if it wouldn't be possible to implement the whole Basic Profile. Luckily I'd have that time at hand, bc we'll probably use it also internally for a tool we're building.
from dicognito.
if one is interested in the content of on or some specific tags, one could create a protector class, that is the first inside the element_handlers and just skips/ protects the tags that one defines in the anonymization procedure.
100%. I thought of a similar thing. Which might work great. Until there are 3, 4, …, 12 tags to keep, which may become a bit of a pain. But who knows!
from dicognito.
Hey, @lmdulz. I think the question's been answered (to the best of my current ability). Any objection to me closing the issue?
from dicognito.
Related Issues (20)
- Add option to anonymize studies with StudyDateTime (and similar) set to now HOT 5
- Allow burned in annotations to cause a warning or failure to anonymize
- Support Python 3.10 HOT 1
- Fails to anonymize LEI file with Mitra global patient ID when using pydicom 2.2.x HOT 1
- How to map original to anonymized data in recursive mode? HOT 7
- Support fully-reproducible deidentification HOT 4
- Please fully document which attributes are removed/cleared/modified HOT 2
- datetime loading and storage HOT 4
- Explicitly exclude DICOM tags from anonymization HOT 16
- Private creator 0031,0020 breaks anonymization
- Anonymization failure cites BytesIO object instead of input filename HOT 1
- Fails to anonymize TimeOfLastCalibration
- Add option to write anonymized files to another directory HOT 2
- Fails to anonymize object with Issue Date of Imaging Service Request HOT 1
- Same patient names anonymize differently when formatted differently HOT 4
- Deflated files are corrupt when anonymized from the command line.
- Date/time offset is not always the same for a given seed
- Unable to anonymize dataset with encapsulated pixel data that contains embedded sequence delimiter HOT 2
- Anonymizing dataset with StationName but no Modality fails
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from dicognito.