QIICR
Filter duplicate measurements instead of disabling plugins
Follow up on the discussion in https://github.com/QIICR/QuantitativeReporting/pull/207#issuecomment-346518149
@chribaue after talking with @fedorov about this issue, we think that duplicated measurements should be handled in SegmentStatistics. What do you think? Do you see a way to filter duplicates in SegmentStatistics during or after statistics computation?
When we developed the SegmentStatistics module with the plugin mechanism and support for handling DICOM meta-data we had a lengthy discussion related to duplicate measurements: https://github.com/QIICR/QuantitativeReporting/issues/161
It would be easy to add to SegmentStatistic exportToTable a separate Flag dicomExportReady that you could use from the QR module, but if the user selects certain plugins and measurements and they don't show up in the results table, the user would get confused and think something is not working. So we need to provide the user feedback somewhere about the issue.
I still think of it as a DICOM SR export issue that should get handled during SR export where the user gets feedback "Successfully exported SR" with potential warnings: "Warning: Measurement ... not exported because necessary DICOM information not provided by plugin" "Warning: Duplicate measurement types with different results! Only wrote first"
@chribaue I see your argument.
I don't think we should add dicomExportReady flag. But I was just thinking that we can have separate measurements group for individual plugins, and use Measurement Method concept (line 1 in http://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part16/chapter_A.html#sect_TID_1419) to code the plugin that was used to perform the calculation. But I also think I would first want to consult with @dclunie. Let me write an email to him, or maybe better discuss at the next QIICR call. Let's postpone this issue until then.
Maybe it is even better to describe the plugin used to generate the measurement in the measurment modifier (line 6 of http://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part16/chapter_A.html#sect_TID_1419). We can have unlimited number of such modifiers per measurement. You can also see an example of how this is communicated in the parameter file to the converter here: https://github.com/QIICR/dcmqi/blob/master/doc/examples/sr-tid1500-ct-liver-example.json#L63-L87
@fedorov both approaches sound reasonable to me. In the spirit of data provenance, we want to maintain which software/measurement method was used to produce the results. @dclunie is definitely the person to consult on how to do that.
I just though of two points we should keep in mind:
- How will these changes impact
dcmqi's interface? - How will this extra information be interpreted by other DICOM compatible non-Slicer software?
- How will these changes impact dcmqi's interface?
Those features are already supported by dcmqi, so should be fine.
- How will this extra information be interpreted by other DICOM compatible non-Slicer software?
We don't know! The only DICOM compatible software that supports SR TID 1500 is ePAD, and they use dcmqi! We are literally on the cutting edge here establishing the pattern of encoding this kind of things. It would be great if there were more tools or at least bigger community to discuss those ideas.
After discussion, it was decided it makes sense to use TID 1409 Algorithm Identification for the purpose of specifying the plugin used.
Depends on https://github.com/QIICR/dcmqi/issues/328
for the reference, https://github.com/QIICR/dcmqi/issues/328 is resolved in https://github.com/QIICR/dcmqi/pull/329. Example of how algorithm information can be populated in the JSON passed to dcmqi is here: https://github.com/QIICR/dcmqi/blob/master/doc/examples/sr-tid1500-example.json#L69-L72