- Quantification of Tau Load Using [F-18]AV1451 PET
- Optimizing VAP scars after childhood cancer treatment: A pilot study
- Running-wheel activity delays mitochondrial respiratory flux decline in aging mouse muscle via a post-transcriptional mechanism
- Comparison of formula and number-right scoring in undergraduate medical training: A Rasch model analysis
- Enrolment of children in psychosocial care: problems upon entry, care received, and outcomes achieved
- Knockdown of TP53 in ASXL1 negative background rescues apoptotic phenotype of human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells but without overt malignant transformation
- Diagnostic Evasion of Highly-Resistant Microorganisms: A Critical Factor in Nosocomial Outbreaks
- Dense and accurate whole-chromosome haplotyping of individual genomes
- Aged Gut Microbiota Contributes to Systemical Inflammaging after Transfer to Germ-Free Mice
- Network Approach to Understanding Emotion Dynamics in Relation to Childhood Trauma and Genetic Liability to Psychopathology: Replication of a Prospective Experience Sampling Analysis
Most Used Journals
Author Archives: Aryanto KY, Oudkerk M, van Ooijen PM
Free DICOM de-identification tools in clinical research: functioning and safety of patient privacy.
Eur Radiol. 2015 Jun 3;
Authors: Aryanto KY, Oudkerk M, van Ooijen PM
PURPOSE: To compare non-commercial DICOM toolkits for their de-identification ability in removing a patient’s personal health information (PHI) from a DICOM header.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten DICOM toolkits were selected for de-identification tests. Tests were performed by using the system’s default de-identification profile and, subsequently, the tools’ best adjusted settings. We aimed to eliminate fifty elements considered to contain identifying patient information. The tools were also examined for their respective methods of customization.
RESULTS: Only one tool was able to de-identify all required elements with the default setting. Not all of the toolkits provide a customizable de-identification profile. Six tools allowed changes by selecting the provided profiles, giving input through a graphical user interface (GUI) or configuration text file, or providing the appropriate command-line arguments. Using adjusted settings, four of those six toolkits were able to perform full de-identification.
CONCLUSION: Only five tools could properly de-identify the defined DICOM elements, and in four cases, only after careful customization. Therefore, free DICOM toolkits should be used with extreme care to prevent the risk of disclosing PHI, especially when using the default configuration. In case optimal security is required, one of the five toolkits is proposed.
KEY POINTS: • Free DICOM toolkits should be carefully used to prevent patient identity disclosure. • Each DICOM tool produces its own specific outcomes from the de-identification process. • In case optimal security is required, using one DICOM toolkit is proposed.
PMID: 26037716 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]