questions
questions > RE: FrameOfReferenceUID
Sep 14, 2018 05:09 PM | Chris Rorden
RE: FrameOfReferenceUID
NIfTI and DICOM fill different niches. The NIfTI format is simple
and explicit. This is ideal for science as it is easy to write
software that supports this format, and they are fast to read and
analyze. In contrast, DICOM is interpreted differently by different
vendors, many unusual conventions are used, and personal data can
be hidden into many of the crevices. I think that DICOM is ideal
for archival work, but must be stored carefully. Even a thorough
DICOM de-anonymization system will fail if the software that
created the tags has an issue like buffer overflow (which has been
seen in data from the major vendors). Further, many anonymization
tools created for classic DICOM simply destroy the meta-data in
enahnced DICOM. To create truly archival quality anonymized DICOM
is a tremendous challenge, in particular if your IRB feels that
facial features seen on T1 scans is identifiable data.
The BIDS standard lies adds a lot of details useful for MRI processing to the NIfTI images. So a happy compromise might be to keep a private encrypted DICOM archive and share a NIfTI/BIDS dataset that has gone through a face-stripping step.
The BIDS standard lies adds a lot of details useful for MRI processing to the NIfTI images. So a happy compromise might be to keep a private encrypted DICOM archive and share a NIfTI/BIDS dataset that has gone through a face-stripping step.
Threaded View
Title | Author | Date |
---|---|---|
Aidan Murphy | Sep 11, 2018 | |
Chris Rorden | Sep 11, 2018 | |
Aidan Murphy | Sep 14, 2018 | |
Chris Rorden | Sep 14, 2018 | |