Anonymizing according to DICOM Standard about dicognito HOT 7 CLOSED

Hi, @lmdulz. Thanks for your interest! I'm afraid my answer will not be super enlightening.
I was not aware of that table. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I can see I'll have to take a gander and see how it can offer ideas for improving dicognito.

I mostly did two things:

1. sat and thought about what tags could leak information, looking at some of the Information Module Definitions.
2. looked at an internal tool my company had written that had some deficiencies, to make sure I at least didn't lose functionality relative it.

That's it! I'm sure dicognito is deficient in a few ways relative the standard(s).

I'm happy to talk more about this if you like.

from dicognito.

Hey, @blairconrad thank you for the insights!
So are you seeing dicognito as a standalone tool or would you use it as addon to your internal companies' tool?
Without wanting to criticize your coverage, it appears to me that using dicognito without caring too much about the tags contained in ones Dicom-files, there still might be some that could leak information, that wouldn't be altered.
Have you thought about remodeling, so that you'd iterate over the table I added before and just check against the occurrence in the file? Like that you could reuse all the classes you created but stick to standardized anonymization regulations.

from dicognito.