Although previously discussed, I would like to revisit the decision to structure the Image_occurrence table at the series-level. When structured at the series-level, each DICOM Study typically contains numerous Series (varies by modality), resulting in multiple identical rows in the Image_occurrence table distinguished only by 'Image_series_UID'.
Discussion Points:
When institutions are deciding whether to introduce an extension table in addition to the existing CDM table, we understand that DB storage is also considered. If there is no specific reason to maintain it at the Series-level, could we consider switching to study-level to eliminate duplicate rows?
Additionally, if maintained at series-level, should we include information to uniquely identify contents of series (SOP Class UID or IOD — e.g. CT Image Storage, MR Image Storage, Secondary Capture Image Storage, ...)? As you know, through the required tag (Type 1) SOP Class UID (0008,0016), each DICOM file can identify the mandatory tags for each IOD.
Although previously discussed, I would like to revisit the decision to structure the Image_occurrence table at the series-level. When structured at the series-level, each DICOM Study typically contains numerous Series (varies by modality), resulting in multiple identical rows in the Image_occurrence table distinguished only by 'Image_series_UID'.
Discussion Points:
References: