RAD-68 Vs ITI-41

[Anurag Shrivastava]

Hi,

AS per RAD Reference Material, There is no difference between Provide And Register Image Set ( RAD-68 ) and Provide And Register Document Set ( ITI-41 ) wsdl except RAD-68 may contain different content type code.

There is no separate component for RAD-68 in IPF as well, is it a safe assumption that ITI-41 transaction can be used to test/certify XDS-I.b profile As XDS Repository Actor ?

 Thanks,

Anurag Shrivastava

[Dmytro Rud]

Hi,

Yes, from the data transfer point of view, RAD-68 is the same as ITI-41.
But you may need to implement additional processing logic (validation, etc.).

Best regards
Dmytro


2013/9/25 Anurag Shrivastava <anurag.shr...@gmail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ipf-user" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ipf-user+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Clay Sebourn]

Hi Boris,

One difference is that the RAD-68 Imaging Document Entries contain a couple additional attributes (modality, exam and body part) which are necessary for supporting imaging documents.  It looks as though IPF does not support XDS-I in either the registering of these attributes or in the ability to query them.  Is this correct?

Thanks,

Clay

[Dmytro Rud]

Hi Clay,

The documentation (IHE RAD TF-3 rev 12.0, around line #3780) states explicitely that RAD-68 uses the same physical data structures as ITI-41. So the additional attributes are in fact not additional, but represent special meanings of existing "generic" attributes. You can handle them from IPF, but IPF does not provide XDS-I.b specific accessors and validators for org.openehealth.ipf.commons.ihe.xds.core.requests.ProvideAndRegisterDocumentSet and its sub-elements.

Note: other transactions from XDS-I.b really use data types different from their XDS.b counterparts (e.g. RAD-69 "Retrieve Imaging Document Set" vs. ITI-43 "Retrieve Document Set"). But for RAD-68 it does not seem to be the case.

And, of course, your code contributions would be highly appreciated :-)

Best regards
Dmytro

[Clay Sebourn]

Thanks Dmytro.  I see on line 3895, the eventCodeList may contain the acquistion modality and the anatomic region (body part), but I cannot find any reference to exam anywhere.  Do you know where this attribute is stored? You would think in the same place, so maybe it's just not documented?

[Dmytro Rud]

DICOM codes are located in PS 3.16 (http://medical.nema.org/Dicom/2011/11_16pu.pdf), Annex B.

In particular, aquisition modality codes are located in CID 29 (p. 337);
anatomic region codes are located in CID 4, 4013, 4016, 4028, 4031, 4040, etc., depending on the aquisition modality.

Examples in the IPF simplified XDS data model:

Code acquisitionModalityCode = new Code("DX", "Digital radiography", "DCM");
Code anatomicRegionCode = new Code("T-28000", "Lung", "SNM3");

"DCM" is code system name for DICOM, OID 1.2.840.10008.2.16.4,
"SNM3" is code system name for SNOMED, OID 2.16.840.1.113883.6.5 ("SRT" in the DICOM documentation).

Examples in ebXML:

<rim:Classification classificationScheme="urn:uuid:2c6b8cb7-8b2a-4051-b291-b1ae6a575ef4" classifiedObject="Document01" nodeRepresentation="DX" id="id_3">
  <rim:Name>
    <rim:LocalizedString value="Digital Radiography"/>
  </rim:Name>
  <rim:Slot name="codingScheme">
    <rim:ValueList>
      <rim:Value>DCM</rim:Value>
    </rim:ValueList>
  </rim:Slot>
</rim:Classification>

Best regards
Dmytro

Am 03.10.2013 23:00, schrieb Clay Sebourn:

[Dmytro Rud]

It seems that I misunderstood the question somehow.
AFAIK, the XDS/XDS-I data model does not provide any dedicated attribute for referencing exams. 
But, maybe, an XDS folder with title=exam_ID would work?

Best regards
Dmytro

-- 
        rnd.

[Clay Sebourn]

Thanks Dmytro.  After re-reading, I now understand that exam is not a specific attribute, and is just identified by various attributes (e.g. date, modality, body part, document type, etc.).

My understanding from http://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_TF_Vol1.pdf section 18.3.4, is that