In the message dated: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:05:10 -0000,
The pithy ruminations from "Marcus, Dan" on
<Re: [XNAT Discussion] Re: Multi time point patient data.> were:
=> Not sure I totally follow but if you're stuck with whatever is in
We've got the same issue -- clinical scanners here are configured to push
cases automatically to our instance of XNAT. These scans may be follow-ups
for existing patients, where an earlier scan has been entered into XNAT,
so we frequently have cases declared as a "Conflict" and not archived.
A while ago I tried to address the problem by re-writing the Session_ID for
these conflicting cases in the prearchive so that they'd be archived under a
new (non-conflicting) name, but I ran into difficulty with the REST syntax:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/xnat_discussion/kI0KUMIuimg
any help would be appreciated.
=> patient id then you can use the study comments field instead. See link
=> in thread below for the format. Or you can edit the session label in the
=> form when you archive (though that doesn't work well if you are doing
=> large batches in auto archive mode).
In our situation, we really cannot ask the clinical radiology technicians
to add or edit DICOM fields before cases are pushed.
The general question of resolving conflicting subject IDs or re-naming
subjects seems to come up fairly often, and it would be terrific to have
a way for XNAT users to easily specify the unique key used within the
database (ie., SubjectID+timestamp). By default, this could remain the
subject ID from the DICOM data, preserving the current behavior.
Thanks,
Mark
=>
=> Sent from my iPhone
=>
=> On Jun 25, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Dan Marcus
=> <
dan.m...@gmail.com<mailto:
dan.m...@gmail.com>> wrote:
=>
=> Right patient ID stays the same within study but should change between
=> studies. Xnat is recognizing that they study uids are different which
=> is why the studies are separated in the prearc. But it is giving you a
=> conflict on archiving bc it thinks all of the session labels (extracted
=> from patient id) are the same.
=>
=> Sent from my iPhone
=>
=> On Jun 25, 2015, at 11:21 PM, gaganjyoti sharma
=> <
gagan...@gmail.com<mailto:
gagan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
=>
=> Thanks Daniel,
=>
=> But, Patient ID never changes throughout the study.... And they have to
=> be same. Normally its the studyinstanceUID and/or seriesintancesUID I
=> have used in the past to segregate my data
=>
=> Regards Gagan
=>
=> On Friday, 26 June 2015 14:06:07 UTC+10, Daniel Marcus wrote: Hi Gagan,
=>
=> XNAT is designed to support the sort of data representation you're
=> looking for. If you're getting a conflict on archiving, I suspect maybe
=> you have the same value in the DICOM patient ID field for all of your
=> sessions. That's the field that XNAT uses to distinguish individual
=> sessions. Try putting different values in that field for the different
=> DICOM studies and it will probably do what you want. I think on the
=> archive page you can also choose to assign a different session label to
=> resolve the conflict. You definitely don't want to merge, as that will
=> put all of the data into a single session.
=>
=>
https://wiki.xnat.org/display/XNAT16/Basic+DICOM+object+identification
=>
=> -Dan
=>
=> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:34:51 PM UTC-5, gaganjyoti sharma
=> wrote: Hi all,
=>
=> Please correct me if I am wrong.
=>
=> In our lab we have lot of longitudinal data, multiple time points
=> I(MR/CT) for the same patient. tried to push that data set towards XNAT.
=> INow it was well received in pre archive, but archiving gave me conflict
=> Iand when I tried to merge manually, the output was not good/favourable.
=> Ideally we want patient data archived in ID/Date_time/series format. Is
=> Iit possible or I need to write a special pipeline for that ?
=>
=> Regards Gagan Sharma
=>
=> PS: Any good step by step tutorial for pipeline, please post.
=>
=> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
=> Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group. To unsubscribe from
=> this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
=>
xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:
xnat_discussion+unsu
=>
bsc...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to
=>
xnat_di...@googlegroups.com<mailto:
xnat_di...@googlegroups.com
=> >. Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion.
=> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
=>
=> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
=> Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group. To unsubscribe from
=> this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
=>
xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:
xnat_discussion+unsu
=>
bsc...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to
=>
xnat_di...@googlegroups.com<mailto:
xnat_di...@googlegroups.com
=> >. Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion.
=> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
=>
=> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
=> Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group. To unsubscribe from
=> this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
=>
xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group,
=> send email to
xnat_di...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
=>
http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion. For more options, visit
=>
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
=>
--
Mark Bergman Biker, Rock Climber, Unix mechanic, IATSE #1 Stagehand
'94 Yamaha GTS1000A^2
ber...@panix.com
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40panix.com
I want a newsgroup with a infinite S/N ratio! Now taking CFV on:
rec.motorcycles.stagehands.pet-bird-owners.pinballers.unix-supporters
15+ So Far--Want to join? Check out:
http://www.panix.com/~bergman