PubMed · 8492595
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J E Paul, K A Weis, R A Epstein. 1993. Data bases for variations research.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199305001-00016
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The methodology and outcome of a hands-on workshop for the evaluation of PACS (picture archiving and communication system) software for a multihospital PACS project are described. The following radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution software clients were evaluated as part of a multistep evaluation of PACS vendors in March 2001: Impax DS 3000 V 4.1/Impax Web1000 (Agfa-Gevaert, Mortsel, Belgium); PathSpeed V 8.0/PathSpeed Web (GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis., USA); ID Report/ID Web (Image Devices, Idstein, Germany); EasyVision DX/EasyWeb (Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, Netherlands); and MagicView 1000 VB33a/MagicWeb (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). A set of anonymized DICOM test data was provided to enable direct image comparison. Radiologists ( n=44) evaluated the radiological workstations and nonradiologists ( n=53) evaluated the image distribution software clients using different questionnaires. One vendor was not able to import the provided DICOM data set. Another vendor had problems in displaying imported cross-sectional studies in the correct stack order. Three vendors (Agfa-Gevaert, GE, Philips) presented server-client solutions with web access. Two (Siemens, Image Devices) presented stand-alone solutions. The highest scores in the class of radiological workstations were achieved by ID Report from Image Devices ( p<0.005). In the class of image distribution clients, the differences were statistically not significant. Questionnaire-based evaluation was shown to be useful for guaranteeing systematic assessment. The workshop was a great success in raising interest in the PACS project in a large group of future clinical users. The methodology used in the present study may be useful for other hospitals evaluating PACS.
A picture archive and communications system (PACS) is a rich source of images and data suitable for creating electronic teaching files (ETF). However, the potential for PACS to support nonclinical applications has not been fully realized: at present there is no mechanism for PACS to identify and store teaching files; neither is there a standardized method for sharing such teaching images. The Medical Image Resource Center (MIRC) is a new central image repository that defines standards for data exchange among different centers. We developed an ETF server that retrieves digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) images from PACS, and enables users to create teaching files that conform to the new MIRC schema. We test-populated our ETF server with illustrative images from the clinical case load of the National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore. Together, PACS and MIRC have the potential to benefit radiology teaching and research.
In this paper, we introduced a novel storage architecture "Unified Storage Network", which merges NAC(Network Attached Channel) and SAN(Storage Area Network), and provides the file I/O services as NAS devices and provides the block I/O services as SAN. To overcome the drawbacks from FC, we employ iSCSI to implement the USN(Unified Storage Network). To evaluate whether iSCSI is more suitable for implementing the USN, we analyze iSCSI protocol and compare it with FC protocol from several components of a network protocol which impact the performance of the network. From the analysis and comparison, we can conclude that the iSCSI is more suitable for implementing the storage network than the FC under condition of the wide-area network. At last, we designed two groups of experiments carefully.