Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix volumizer bug #4

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2015
Merged

Fix volumizer bug #4

merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2015

Conversation

mwaskom
Copy link
Member

@mwaskom mwaskom commented Mar 31, 2015

This changes the logic of the volumizer so that it explicity uses the
dicom instance numbers to order slices in each volume. This will make
robust to cases where the alphanumeric ordering of the dicom file names
does not correspond to the order of acquisition for each slice (#3).

Closes #3

This changes the logic of the volumizer so that it explicity uses the
dicom instance numbers to order slices in each volume. This will make
robust to cases where the alphanumeric ordering of the dicom file names
does not correspond to the order of acquisition for each slice (#3).

Closes #3
@mwaskom
Copy link
Member Author

mwaskom commented Mar 31, 2015

@rfdougherty can you double-check the logic here?

Previous approach assumed that the first slice into the queue was
the first slice from the acquisition. That is not always true.
This approach computes the needed slices externally to the slices it
actually gets.

To do so it explicitly checks the exam/series/acq number of each
incoming slice and determines if a new acquisition has started.
This may cause problems if dicoms are written out of order with
respect to acquisitions. Hopefully that will not happen.
@mwaskom
Copy link
Member Author

mwaskom commented Apr 7, 2015

OK I think this second approach is correct and addresses the problem you identified. Let me know what you think.

@mwaskom
Copy link
Member Author

mwaskom commented May 5, 2015

Merging so it's easier to deal with on voxel2; this might not be perfect but it's definitely better than before :)

mwaskom added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2015
@mwaskom mwaskom merged commit 709a22a into master May 5, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Volume assembly is broken
2 participants