Hard disk online caches in picture archiving and communication systems archives: how big is beautiful?

Stefan Wirth, Marcus Treitl, Ullrich-Gerd Mueller-Lisse, Johannes Rieger, Ingo Mittermaier, Klaus-Juergen Pfeifer, Maximilian Reiser
Author Information
  1. Stefan Wirth: Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Nussbaumstrasse 20, 80336 Munich, Germany. Stefan.Wirth@med.uni-muenchen.de

Abstract

The objective of our study was to support algorithmic recommendations for the appropriate sizing of picture archiving and communication system (PACS) caches. For a large PACS installation, a detailed analysis of current radiographic (CR), CT and MRI studies (n=400 consecutive studies, respectively) was performed. In this process every available prior examination was also considered. A new algorithmic procedure for appropriate sizing of PACS caches was developed and applied to the given cache implementation. The number of all priors was 7.6+/-12.3. Of them, 61% were relevant priors with an average age of 203+/-385 days. A basic cache (BC) that covers 12 months of current imaging results in a pre-fetching quote of 15.4% (8.6% for 24 months). In the PACS installation examined, a minimal threefold increase in cache capacity was recommended. Studies that are retrieved, prior to viewing, from the long-term archive require additional space in the extended cache (EC). An intimate and mutual interaction between hospital information system (HIS), radiology information system (RIS) and PACS minimizes this requirement and increases the time during which actual image material from the BC is available online. A basic cache size covering actual imaging of 12 months up to 24 months is recommended. The parameters governing the individual dimensions of both cache spaces and a mathematical algorithm are demonstrated.

References

  1. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2003;27(2-3):165-74 [PMID: 12620307]
  2. Radiologe. 2005 Aug;45(8):690-7 [PMID: 15942730]
  3. J Digit Imaging. 2001 Jun;14(2):72-82 [PMID: 11440257]
  4. Rofo. 2005 Feb;177(2):250-7 [PMID: 15666234]
  5. Radiologe. 1999 Apr;39(4):304-9 [PMID: 10337701]
  6. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 May-Jun;8(3):242-53 [PMID: 11320069]
  7. J Digit Imaging. 2001 Jun;14(2 Suppl 1):135-9 [PMID: 11442074]
  8. Eur Radiol. 2004 Sep;14(9):1702-6 [PMID: 15069577]
  9. Radiologe. 2002 Feb;42(2):119-24 [PMID: 11963246]
  10. Rofo. 2003 Jul;175(7):973-80 [PMID: 12847654]
  11. Radiographics. 2003 May-Jun;23(3):795-801 [PMID: 12740478]
  12. J Digit Imaging. 2001 Jun;14(2 Suppl 1):72-6 [PMID: 11442127]
  13. Radiol Manage. 2002 May-Jun;24(3):30-8; quiz 39-41 [PMID: 12080930]
  14. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Feb;73(1):1-23 [PMID: 15036075]
  15. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(6):1152-60 [PMID: 10415255]
  16. Rofo. 2000 Jun;172(6):542-52 [PMID: 10916551]
  17. J Digit Imaging. 2000 May;13(2 Suppl 1):73-5 [PMID: 10847367]
  18. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15 Suppl 1:7-12 [PMID: 12105690]
  19. J Digit Imaging. 1999 May;12(2 Suppl 1):218-22 [PMID: 10342221]
  20. Radiologe. 2002 May;42(5):351-60 [PMID: 12132122]

MeSH Term

Algorithms
Humans
Information Storage and Retrieval
Online Systems
Radiology Information Systems
Statistics, Nonparametric

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cachePACSmonthssystemcachesalgorithmicappropriatesizingpicturearchivingcommunicationinstallationcurrentstudiesavailablepriorpriorsbasicBC12imaging24recommendedinformationactualonlineobjectivestudysupportrecommendationslargedetailedanalysisradiographicCRCTMRIn=400consecutiverespectivelyperformedprocesseveryexaminationalsoconsiderednewproceduredevelopedappliedgivenimplementationnumber76+/-12361%relevantaverageage203+/-385dayscoversresultspre-fetchingquote154%86%examinedminimalthreefoldincreasecapacityStudiesretrievedviewinglong-termarchiverequireadditionalspaceextendedECintimatemutualinteractionhospitalHISradiologyRISminimizesrequirementincreasestimeimagematerialsizecoveringparametersgoverningindividualdimensionsspacesmathematicalalgorithmdemonstratedHarddisksystemsarchives:bigbeautiful?

Similar Articles

Cited By