Difference between revisions of "Process Coordinating Committee"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 89: Line 89:
:::* Ed, Brad, Joe, Kevin, Dan, RSNA Webperson
:::* Ed, Brad, Joe, Kevin, Dan, RSNA Webperson
:::* Start by looking at what is on the RSNA QIBA pages,  
:::* Start by looking at what is on the RSNA QIBA pages,  
:* Conformance Process
:* Conformance Process

Revision as of 22:04, 5 March 2019

Chairs: Kevin O'Donnell (Chair); Dan Sullivan, MD (Vice-chair)
Secretary: Susan Stanfa (RSNA Staff)


The Process Committee facilitates the QIBA Coordinating Committees and their profiling activities by defining processes and tools to promote consistent quality work product.

  • Develop common Templates & Processes
  • Support & mentor adoption of above
  • Drive consistent content & format of Profiles
  • Support infrastructure for Committees

Meetings/Call Summaries

  • Upcoming: Biweekly Tcons, 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month @ 3-4pm Central Time (Contact Susan for details)

Approved call summaries:

Process Committee Call Summaries Archive

Working Documents

Current Work

  • Draft standing agenda item for Coordinating Cmtes to remind/confirm BC committees keeping their BC Wiki page up to date (especially links to current draft documents)
  • Advise - put "recent" working draft of profiles at least quarterly on the BC Cmte Page. (i.e. don't leave them on TF pages)
  • Dashboard item to confirm representative(s) for major stakeholder groups: Radiologists, Physicists, Technologists, Scanner vendors, SW vendors, ...
  • Public Comment resolution
  • Set up Wiki page for holding all the comment resolution records from past public comment.
  • Work with RSNA on a boilerplate email to send to commenters (who gave their email on the comment form) pointing to the resolutions document for their submitted comments. (Staff will draft some proposed text for review)
  • Could build it into the automatic confirmation message that the confirmation form sends out. (Susan)
  • Sketch Sunset procedure for retiring Task Forces and Biomarker Committees that have completed their work.
  • Outline who proposes, who considers, who decides
  • TF should be inherently ephemeral - BC should wrap them up quickly when the work is done. - TODO Kevin - Brief Guidance page based on this content
  • BC is more persistent - Dormant - BCs use resources and need to free those up at some point.
  • Maybe remind CC that all BCs should be reviewed -
  • (One BC might be waiting for groundwork and could go dormant and free up time for others in the same CC - but there is a risk that the new one is still working when groundwork comes back.)
  • Limited meeting slots - BC frequency is an issue/question too. - directly linear load on RSNA - staff and minutes
  • CC might be the one to coordinate allocation of the resources approved by Steering?
  • Allows some flexibility -
  • Note - there is an overhead factor (pre-call prep, followup, about 2x overhead per hour of call)
  • Also limited slots for calls when Europe is involved (late morning East Coast)
  • Define Dormant vs Dissolve - opens space for new Cmte (RSNA Resources), migrate active members to new work
  • BC might go dormant because no things in the near future they expect to add - give time for adoption, free up resources for others
  • Keep Dissolve on the process books but likely won't use it often? - Dissolve can give a restart scenario a clean sheet
  • Mostly would go Dormant - profiles might need review/update cycle with advances/new data after a couple of years
  • Might have Dissolve only happen after Dormant. - Dissolve - no intention to revisit (but never say never, could recreate, but more work - fresh start)
  • Use new proposal to Coord Cmte as trigger to review current BC (conservation of resources)
  • Biomarker committees collect SMEs specific to the Biomarker in question
  • Don't need to set criteria, just triggers and process


  • Profile Selection Process
  • Review/update review criteria/evaluations for new BC proposals
  • Harvest from past experiences
  • Given limited resources, how to approve not just good proposals but the best proposals
  • Evidence that the biomarker already has vendor and user adoption and just needs the "last mile" improvements that QIBA brings.
  • Consider Prior Project completion when Steering Cmte reviews new Proposals from the same PI.
  • timing overlap of prior cycle completion period with new proposal period needs to be one considered.
  • possible solution would require final reports for prior COMPLETED funding cycles before considering a new project proposal
  • On-boarding process
  • Help new committees, new members, new authors, new reviewers, new adopters
  • "How to develop a Profile" Guidance
  • Add some "How to Read a Profile" guidance (also useful for reviewers), e.g. focus on Spec tables. Look at your relevant Activities/Procedures. Read the Discussion sections for more background.
  • Joe's intro email, current template and stage docs, QIBA Fact Sheet
  • Find a way to link directly into the "current" version of documents without having to update the links. Now we link to the Profile template page then you have to click a second time put pull up the template.
  • Could use a "fresh eyes"/newcomer commentary - find a newcomer guinea pig
  • Kevin will work with Joe to get it into a Google Doc for revision and linking from the Wiki.


  • Adoption of Profiles
  • Maybe a new TF to support Adoption (can include some Process people)
  • Ed, Brad, Joe, Kevin, Dan, RSNA Webperson
  • Start by looking at what is on the RSNA QIBA pages,
  • Conformance Process
  • What should go into a Conformance Record? - (e.g. findings from Technical Confirmation tests)
  • Need a common view of what conformance entails, how it is achieved, what it looks like to a product, how it is documented, etc.
  • Then we need to ensure that the QIBA Templates/Process supports those things clearly.
  • Kevin will put some initial thoughts on a Wiki page and we can review/add
  • How often should conformance assessment be done, who will assess, who will keep records?
  • Should QIBA get into hosting the Conformance Statements on our site (and then we could link to them from the Profiles page which would be very handy)
  • Consider the RSNA Image Share Conformance Assessment Program and whether we should do something similar for QIBA
  • Process committee can think through the details of a process and confer with RSNA whether they would be interested
  • Clinical Confirmation Process
  • Methodology/Study Design guidance/requirements for achieving "Clinically Confirmed"
  • QIBA Tooling
  • How to use Google Docs?
  • Issues with references, access restricted by federal agencies and some companies
  • Round trip fidelity between Word-Google-Word
  • QIBA Wiki
  • QIBA Wiki Improvements
  • Wiki serves QIBA Committee work. Consider a new user oriented site (clinicians, administrators).
  • Wiki vs RSNA.org
  • Address relationship between wiki content (current, easy to update) and website content (authoritative, stable)
  • Likely RSNA staff will periodically mirror wiki content up onto the website; address this in publication process.
  • Consider how to handle handoffs between RSNA website
  • RSNA website is controlled by the RSNA Marketing Department, must meet certain style requirements, and require resources beyond QIBA staff
  • QIBA would still like to find a way for the more formal publications (e.g. later stage profiles) to be accessible from the RSNA website.
  • Literature Search
  • Process/best practices for review of literature around a new biomarker/profile (search is relatively straight forward)
  • Assemble draft guidance to kick this off (Hendrik Laue, Ona Wu, Caroline? Chung)
  • Where do you store references, what kind of search works best, what exactly are you looking for?
  • Also meta-analysis guidance to determine sources and levels of variance
  • PDF/DWI - using Google Sheet to track/tabulate/organize - inherently input from many sources so nice to have centralized, commonly edited, accessible
  • Profile Maintenance Process
  • Propose change tracking process
  • Propose conventions for Profile editions/versions
  • Guidelines for Reference Implementations and commercial products in Profiles
  • (underlying algorithm available, list all comers, non-commercial?, etc)
  • TODO add detail
  • Public Comment attribution
  • don't push for anonymity. Encourage people to identify themselves (deserve credit and we want to be able to followup)
  • form can accept anonymous, but encourage constructive criticism that will be taken in the spirit given.


Todo items that are on hold pending some trigger:

  • Claim Guidance
  • Hold pending people with questions/clarification needs on current text
  • Profile Template
  • Hold pending new suggestions/clarification needs
  • Harmonize assessment procedures across profiles
  • Profile Retirement Process
  • Profile Disclaimer
  • Hold pending revist of Discriminatory Claims
  • For now QIBA addresses technical performance. Getting into the clinical performance associated with Discriminatory Claims would open a lot of issues.
  • Statistical Assumption Testing Guidance
  • Conformance with the statistical assumptions is required at the various QIBA profile stages.
  • Need guidance on the assumptions in the profile, validating the assumptions and testing actors for meeting those assumptions.
  • Symmetrical vs Assymetrical change intervals?
  • Questions about the numbers in "Academic Radiology: ?? Paper"

See Also

This page is based on the Committee Template. Add any good ideas you have to the template.