Results for “statistical image analysis” — Page 51

NASA NTRS2004

Physics of Galaxy Clusters and How it Affects Cosmological Tests

The main activities in 2004 were focused on completion of the new 400 square degrees ROSAT PSPC survey for distant galaxy clusters. We observed and reduced optical spectra for all X-ray candidates and now we have complete identification for a statistically complete sample of distant 283 clusters. The papers describing the cluster catalog and first science results are in preparation and will be submitted in early 2005. We also completed a project to measure temperature and density profiles at large radii using Chandra observations of a 11 well exposed low-redshift clusters. We were able to demonstrate that the density, temperature, and total mass profiles are self-similar at large radii. This analysis has led to significant improvements in determination of the cluster baryon fraction as well as cosmologically important scaling relations, such as Mtot-T. The paper describing these results is submitted to ApJ in November, 2004. We continued to study evolution of the cluster scaling relations at high redshifts using Chandra and XMM data. We developed code for image and spectral deconvolution of the XMM observations. This code was used to reconstruct the distribution of baryons and total mass from observations of distant clusters which suffer from the finite size of the XMM PSF. This study allowed us to derive a high-redshift relation between cluster temperature and mass and compare it with the local relation obtained. The paper describing the first results is submitted to the ApJ. However, the project is still on-going as more distant cluster observations enter XMh4 and Chandra public data archives. We continued our work on improving techniques for accurate measurements of the cluster mass function and obtaining cosmological constraints from such observations. We published (ApJ, 601, 610) a study in which we derived the baryon mass function for a complete sample of low-redshift clusters. These papers argued that it was an excellent proxy for the total mass function. The baryon mass function can be used to constrain the amplitude and slope of the density fluctuation power spectrum on cluster scales. This method does not use observational determinations of the total mass and thus bypasses major uncertainties in the traditional analyses based on the X-ray temperature function. We derived the measurements for the amplitude of density perturbations, sigma8 = 0.72 +/- 0.04 and the shape parameter Omega*h = 0.l3 +/- 0.07, in good agreement with a number of independent methods.

Oliversen, Ronald J.↗

NASA NTRS2019

The PetitSat Mission – Science Goals and Instrumentation

The mid- and low-latitude ionosphere is home to a variety of plasma density irregularities, including depletions (bubbles), enhancements (blobs), and small-scale scintillation. Previous studies of plasma density enhancements observed using ROCSAT data have posited that these structures are the direct result of the formation of bubbles near the geomagnetic equator. However, more recent observations from the C/NOFS satellite suggest that multiple mechanisms are responsible for forming plasma enhancements, with wave action in the ionosphere and thermosphere as a significant driver of the enhanced densities. Indeed, statistical analysis of enhancements observed from satellites resembles the statistics of Medium-Scale Traveling Ionosphere Disturbances (MSTIDs) with respect to seasonal variability and solar activity. petitSat is a CubeSat mission designed to examine the link between MSTIDs and plasma enhancements. The mission will provide in situ measurements of the plasma density, 3D ion drift, as well as ion and neutral composition. The instrument suite includes a combined retarding potential analyzer and cross-track drift meter and an ion-neutral mass spectrometer. This instrument suite will provide comprehensive information about the fluctuations in plasma, as well as changes in the neutral profile. petitSat will launch into a 51 deg inclination orbit at 400 km (consistent with an International Space Station deployment), allowing for numerous conjunctions with the Boston University All-Sky Imager network over the mission lifetime.

J. Klenzing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Statistical Estimate of the Radar Coverage of the Low Earth Orbit Debris Environment

For over three decades, the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) has used the Goldstone Orbital Debris Radar, Haystack Ultrawideband Satellite Imaging Radar (HUSIR), and Haystack Auxiliary (HAX) radar assets to collect data on the low Earth orbit (LEO) debris environment. Each radar, with its unique beamwidth, altitude and inclination coverage, and limiting size threshold, operates in a beam park mode to statistically sample the orbital debris population in LEO. Provided that these assets are shared with other users, the orbital debris data collection is not continuous; rather, intermittent data collects are acquired and sent to the NASA ODPO. To understand the sampling process conducted by each radar over time and any related observational biases, a Statistical Confirmation of Radar Uniformity or Bias (SCRUB) code has been implemented to model the coverage of these assets for informing future operations, as well as usage of the data collected from these ground-based sensors. For this analysis, Right Ascension of the Ascending Node (RAAN) is used as a metric to measure statistical coverage. A complete survey of the LEO environment is understood to be measurements that sufficiently sample all values of RAAN for each altitude-inclination pair visible from the radar asset. Regions of incompleteness or statistical bias can help inform future observation campaigns. The SCRUB tool evaluates the coverage of the LEO environment, not by examining individual objects that may pass through a sensor’s field of view (FOV), but by determining which orbit planes pass through the FOV. Once a pointing geometry for a radar site, observation time, and range extent are configured by the user, SCRUB computes the inclinations and altitudes that are visible by the sensor. For each inclination-altitude pair, there is a distinct pair of possible RAAN values, corresponding to the ascending and descending orbit passing through that point in the sensor cone. Repeating this process for all points in the beam, and for multiple time periods during an observation window, creates a matrix of all inclination-altitude-RAAN combinations that are visible during a sensor run. This process can then be repeated for all observations within a year (for an annual survey), propagating all the RAAN values to a common epoch, typically the start of a calendar year, and combining the observations to assemble a full estimate of the RAAN coverage of the LEO environment. This RAAN coverage can then be analyzed for uniformity of sampling, within a certain inclination-altitude pair, or between larger regions of the space environment. This paper provides a general overview of the radar assets utilized by ODPO, typical analysis data products assuming circular orbits, and a discussion of the algorithms that feed between modeling and measurement operations. Following the description of the algorithm, estimates of coverage using HUSIR radar data collected from multiple years are developed and compared.

Chris L Ostrom↗

NASA NTRS2022

A Dynamic Landslide Hazard Monitoring Framework for the Lower Mekong Region

The Lower Mekong region is one of the most landslide-prone areas of the world. Despite the need for dynamic characterization of landslide hazard zones within the region, it is largely understudied for several reasons. Dynamic and integrated understanding of landslide processes requires landslide inventories across the region, which have not been available previously. Computational limitations also hamper regional landslide hazard assessment, including accessing and processing remotely sensed information. Finally, open-source software and modelling packages are required to address regional landslide hazard analysis. Leveraging an open-source data-driven global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness model framework, this study develops a region-specific dynamic landslide hazard system leveraging satellite-based Earth observation data to assess landslide hazards across the lower Mekong region. A set of landslide inventories were prepared from high-resolution optical imagery using advanced image-processing techniques. Several static and dynamic explanatory variables (i.e., rainfall, soil moisture, slope, relief, distance to roads, distance to faults, distance to rivers) were considered during the model development phase. An extreme gradient boosting decision tree model was trained for the monsoon period of 2015–2019 and the model was evaluated with independent inventory information for the 2020 monsoon period. The model performance demonstrated considerable skill using receiver operating characteristic curve statistics, with Area Under the Curve values exceeding 0.95. The model architecture was designed to use near-real-time data, and it can be implemented in a cloud computing environment (i.e., Google Cloud Platform) for the routine assessment of landslide hazards in the Lower Mekong region. This work was developed in collaboration with scientists at the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center as part of the NASA SERVIR Program’s Mekong hub. The goal of this work is to develop a suite of tools and services on accessible open-source platforms that support and enable stakeholder communities to better assess landslide hazard and exposure at local to regional scales for decision making and planning.

Nishan Kumar Biswas↗

DOE OSTI2016

Nano-XRF Analysis of Metal Impurities Distribution at PL Active Grain Boundaries During mc-Silicon Solar Cell Processing

Metal impurities are known to hinder the performance of commercial Si-based solar cells by inducing bulk recombination, increasing leakage current, and causing direct shunting. Recently, a set of photoluminescence (PL) images of neighboring multicrystalline silicon wafers taken from a cell production line at different processing stages has been acquired. Both band-to-band PL and sub-bandgap PL (subPL) images showed various regions with different PL signal intensity. Interestingly, in several of these regions a reversal of the subPL intensity was observed right after the deposition of the antireflective coating. In this paper, we present the results of the synchrotron-based nano-X-ray fluorescence imaging performed in areas characterized by the subPL reversal to evaluate the possible role of metal decoration in this uncommon behavior. Furthermore, the acquisition of a statistically meaningful set of data for samples taken at different stages of the solar cell manufacturing allows us to shine a light on the precipitation and rediffusion mechanisms of metal impurities at these grain boundaries.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2011

Global Electric Circuit Diurnal Variation Derived from Storm Overflight and Satellite Optical Lightning Datasets

We have combined analyses of over 1000 high altitude aircraft observations of electrified clouds with diurnal lightning statistics from the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) and Optical Transient Detector (OTD) to produce an estimate of the diurnal variation in the global electric circuit. Using basic assumptions about the mean storm currents as a function of flash rate and location, and the global electric circuit, our estimate of the current in the global electric circuit matches the Carnegie curve diurnal variation to within 4% for all but two short periods of time. The agreement with the Carnegie curve was obtained without any tuning or adjustment of the satellite or aircraft data. Mean contributions to the global electric circuit from land and ocean thunderstorms are 1.1 kA (land) and 0.7 kA (ocean). Contributions to the global electric circuit from ESCs are 0.22 kA for ocean storms and 0.04 kA for land storms. Using our analysis, the mean total conduction current for the global electric circuit is 2.0 kA.

Mach, Douglas M.↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-207B-07: Development of a CT-Radiomics Based Early Response Prediction Model During Delivery of Chemoradiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

Purpose: Pilot study developing a CT-texture based model for early assessment of treatment response during the delivery of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for pancreatic cancer. Methods: Daily CT data acquired for 24 pancreatic head cancer patients using CT-on-rails, during the routine CT-guided CRT delivery with a radiation dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, were analyzed. The pancreas head was contoured on each daily CT. Texture analysis was performed within the pancreas head contour using a research tool (IBEX). Over 1300 texture metrics including: grey level co-occurrence, run-length, histogram, neighborhood intensity difference, and geometrical shape features were calculated for each daily CT. Metric-trend information was established by finding the best fit of either a linear, quadratic, or exponential function for each metric value verses accumulated dose. Thus all the daily CT texture information was consolidated into a best-fit trend type for a given patient and texture metric. Linear correlation was performed between the patient histological response vector (good, medium, poor) and all combinations of 23 patient subgroups (statistical jackknife) determining which metrics were most correlated to response and repeatedly reliable across most patients. Control correlations against CT scanner, reconstruction kernel, and gated/nongated CT images were also calculated. Euclidean distance measure was used to group/sort patient vectors based on the data of these trend-response metrics. Results: We found four specific trend-metrics (Gray Level Coocurence Matrix311-1InverseDiffMomentNorm, Gray Level Coocurence Matrix311-1InverseDiffNorm, Gray Level Coocurence Matrix311-1 Homogeneity2, and Intensity Direct Local StdMean) that were highly correlated with patient response and repeatedly reliable. Our four trend-metric model successfully ordered our pilot response dataset (p=0.00070). We found no significant correlation to our control parameters: gating (p=0.7717), scanner (p=0.9741), and kernel (p=0.8586). Conclusion: We have successfully created a CT-texture based early treatment response prediction model using the CTs acquired during the delivery of chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer. Future testing is required to validate the model with more patient data.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1989

Computer-aided boundary delineation of agricultural lands

The National Agricultural Statistics Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) presently uses labor-intensive aerial photographic interpretation techniques to divide large geographical areas into manageable-sized units for estimating domestic crop and livestock production. Prototype software, the computer-aided stratification (CAS) system, was developed to automate the procedure, and currently runs on a Sun-based image processing system. With a background display of LANDSAT Thematic Mapper and United States Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, the operator uses a cursor to delineate agricultural areas, called sampling units, which are assigned to strata of land-use and land-cover types. The resultant stratified sampling units are used as input into subsequent USDA sampling procedures. As a test, three counties in Missouri were chosen for application of the CAS procedures. Subsequent analysis indicates that CAS was five times faster in creating sampling units than the manual techniques were.

Cheng, Thomas D.↗

NASA NTRS1990

The Einstein Observatory Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey. I - X-ray data and analysis

This paper presents the results of the analysis of the X-ray data and the optical identification for the Einstein Observatory Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey (EMSS). The survey consists of 835 serendipitous sources detected at or above 4 times the rms level in 1435 imaging proportional counter fields with centers located away from the Galactic plane. Their limiting sensitivities are about (5-300) x 10 to the -14th ergs/sq cm sec in the 0.3-3.5-keV energy band. A total area of 778 square deg of the high-Galactic-latitude sky has been covered. The data have been analyzed using the REV1 processing system, which takes into account the nonuniformities of the detector. The resulting EMSS catalog of X-ray sources is a flux-limited and homogeneous sample of astronomical objects that can be used for statistical studies.

Gioia, I. M.↗

DOE OSTI2023

A unified catalogue-level reanalysis of stage-III cosmic shear surveys

ABSTRACT Cosmological parameter constraints from recent galaxy imaging surveys are reaching percent-level accuracy on the effective amplitude of the lensing signal, S8. The upcoming Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory will produce subpercent level measurements of cosmological parameters, providing a milestone test of the ΛCDM model. To supply guidance to the upcoming LSST analysis, it is important to understand thoroughly the results from different recent galaxy imaging surveys and assess their consistencies. In this work, we perform a unified catalogue-level reanalysis of three cosmic shear data sets: the first year data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES-Y1), the 1000 deg2 data set from the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000), and the first year data from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC-Y1). We utilize a pipeline developed and rigorously tested by the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration to perform the reanalysis and assess the robustness of the results to analysis choices. We find the S8 constraint to be robust to two different small-scale modelling approaches, and varying choices of cosmological priors. Our unified analysis allows the consistency of the surveys to be rigorously tested, and we find the three surveys to be statistically consistent. Due to the partially overlapping footprint, we model the cross-covariance between KiDS-1000 and HSC-Y1 approximately when combining all three data sets, resulting in a 1.6–1.9 per cent constraint on S8 given different assumptions on the cross-covariance.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-JeP4-06: Evaluation of Interfractional and Intrafractional Tumor Motion in Stereotactic Liver Radiotherapy, Based On Four-Dimensional Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Using Fiducial Markers

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfractional and intrafractional motion of liver tumors in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), based on four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography using fiducial markers. (4D-CBCT). Methods: Seven patients with liver tumors were treated by SBRT with abdominal compression (AC) in five fractions with image guidance based on 4D-CBCT. The 4D-CBCT studies were performed to determine the individualized internal margin for the planning simulation. The interfractional and intrafractional changes of liver tumor motion for all patients was measured, based on the planning simulation 4D-CBCT, pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT, and post-SBRT 4D-CBCT. The interfractional motion change was calculated from the difference in liver tumor amplitude on pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT relative to that of the planning simulation 4D-CBCT for each fraction. The intrafractional motion change was calculated from the difference between the liver tumor amplitudes of the pre- and post-SBRT 4D-CBCT for each fraction. Significant interfractional and intrafractional changes in liver tumor motion were defined as a change ≥3 mm. Statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation. Results: The values of the mean amplitude of liver tumor, as indicated by planning simulation 4D-CBCT, were 1.6 ± 0.8 mm, 1.6 ± 0.9 mm, and 4.9 ± 2.2 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between the liver tumor amplitudes, based on planning simulation 4D-CBCT, and pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT during fraction treatment in the LR, AP, and SI directions were 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, respectively. Interfractional and intrafractional motion changes of ≥3 mm occurred in 23% and 3% of treatment fractions, respectively. Conclusion: The interfractional and intrafractional changes of liver tumor motion were small in most patients who received liver SBRT with AC. In addition, planning simulation 4D-CBCT was useful for representing liver tumor movement in patients undergoing SBRT. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26861004.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2004

Reflectance and Thermal Infrared Spectroscopy of Mars: Relationship Between ISM and TES for Compositional Determinations

Reflectance spectroscopy has demonstrated that high albedo surfaces on Mars contain heavily altered materials with some component of hematite, poorly crystalline ferric oxides, and an undefined silicate matrix. The spectral properties of many low albedo regions indicate crystalline basalts containing both low and high calcium pyroxene, a mineralogy consistent with the basaltic SNC meteorites. The Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) experiment on the Mars Geochemical Surveyor has acquired critical new data relevant to surface composition and mineralogy, but in a wavelength region that is complementary to reflectance spectroscopy. The essence of the completed research was to analyze TES data in the context of reflectance data obtained by the French ISM imaging spectrometer experiment in 1989. This approach increased our understanding of the complementary nature of these wavelength regions for mineralogic determinations using actual observations of the martian surface. The research effort focused on three regions of scientific importance: Syrtis Major-Isidis Basin, Oxia Palus-Arabia, and Valles Marineris. In each region distinct spatial variations related to reflectance, and in derived mineralogic information and interpreted compositional units were analyzed. In addition, specific science questions related to the composition of volcanics and crustal evolution, soil compositions and pedogenic processes, and the relationship between pristine lithologies and weathering provided an overall science-driven framework for the work. The detailed work plan involved colocation of TES and ISM data, extraction of reflectance and emissivity spectra from areas of known reflectance variability, and quantitative analysis using factor analysis and statistical techniques to determine the degree of correspondence between these different wavelength regions. Identified coherent variations in TES spectroscopy were assessed against known atmospheric effects to validate that the variations are due to surface properties. With this new understanding of reflectance and emission spectroscopy, mineralogic interpretations were derived and applied to the science objectives of the three regions.

Boyce, Joseph↗

NASA NTRS2012

Coordinated STEM/FIB/NanoSIMS Analyses of Presolar Silicates in Comet Dust and Primitive Meteorites

Silicate grains were among the most abundant mineralogical building blocks of our Solar System. These grains were the detritus from earlier generations of stars that have been recycled in the early solar nebula. Rare sub-micrometer survivors of this processing have been identified in meteorites, micrometeorites and interplanetary dust particles (IDPs). These silicate grains are recognized as presolar in origin because of their extremely anomalous isotopic compositions that reflect nucleosynthetic processes in their stellar sources (evolved stars, novae and supernovae). We perform coordinated chemical, mineralogical and isotopic studies of these grains to determine their origins and histories. We examine the complex mineralogy and petrography of presolar silicates using imaging, diffraction and chemical data obtained from thin sections with the JSC JEOL 2500 field-emission STEM equipped with a Noran thin window energy dispersive x-ray (EDX) spectrometer and a Gatan Tridiem GIF. Quantitative element x-ray maps (spectrum images) are acquired by rastering a 4 nm incident probe whose dwell time is minimized to avoid beam damage and element diffusion during mapping. Successive image layers are acquired and combined in order to achieve approx 1% counting statistics for major elements. The IDP samples are prepared by ultramicrotomy of particles embedded in epoxy or elemental sulfur. After EDX mapping, the sections are subjected to C, N, and O isotopic imaging with the JSC NanoSIMS 50L ion microprobe. We prepare sections of some meteorite grains using the JSC FEI Quanta 3D focused ion beam (FIB) instrument. The specimen surface is protected from the FIB milling process by layers of electron beam-deposited C and Pt followed by an ion-deposited Pt layer. We also use the FIB to preferentially remove surrounding grains to reduce the background in subsequent NanoSIMS measurements. For mineralogical studies, we again employ the FIB instrument to deposit a protective cap over the grain of interest and then extract the grain and thin it to electron transparency for TEM analysis.

Keller, Lindsay↗

DOE OSTI2019

Rapid kVp switching dual-energy CT in the assessment of urolithiasis in patients with large body habitus: preliminary observations on image quality and stone characterization

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the image quality (IQ) considerations of rapid kVp switching dual-energy CT (rsDECT) in the assessment of urolithiasis in patients with large body habitus and to evaluate whether it allows stone characterization. Materials and methods: In this IRB-approved, HIPAA compliant retrospective study, 93 consecutive patients (M/F = 72/21, mean age 56.9 years, range 23–83 years) with large body habitus (> 90 kg/198 lbs) who underwent dual-energy (DE) stone protocol CT on a rapid kVp switching DECT scanner between January 2013 and December 2016 were included. Scan acquisition protocol included an initial unenhanced single-energy CT (SECT) scan of KUB followed by targeted DECT in the region of stones. Two readers evaluated both CT data sets (axial 5 mm 120 kVp/140 kVp QC/70 keV monoenergetic, material density water/iodine images and coronal/sagittal 3 mm images) for the assessment of image quality (Scores: 1–4) and characterization of stone composition (reference standard: crystallography). Results: One hundred and five CT examinations were performed in 93 patients (mean body weight 105.12 ± 13.53 kg, range 91–154 kg), and a total of 321 urinary tract calculi (mean size-4.8 ± 3.2 mm, range 1.2–22 mm) were detected. Both SECT and targeted monoenergetic images were of acceptable image quality (mean IQ: 3.77 and 3.83, kappa 0.79 and 0.87 respectively). Material density water and iodine images had lower IQ scores (mean IQ: 2.97 and 3.09 respectively) with image quality deterioration due to severe photon starvation/streak artifacts in 20% (21/105) and 17% (18/105) scans, respectively. Characterization of stone composition into uric acid/non-uric acid stones was achieved in 93.14% (299/321) of calculi (mean size: 4.99 ± 3.3 mm, range 1.2–22 mm), while 7% (22/321) stones could not be characterized (mean size 3.03 ± 1.16 mm, range 1.6–6.4 mm) (p < 0.001). Most common reason for non-characterization was image quality deterioration of the material density iodine images due to severe photon starvation artifacts. On multivariate regression, stone size and patient weight were predictors of stone composition determination on DECT (p < 0.05). The transverse diameter had a weak negative correlation with stone composition determination, but it was not statistically significant. Stone characterization into uric acid vs. non-uric acid stones was accurate in 95% (n = 38/40) of stones in comparison with crystallography. Conclusion: In patients with large body habitus, rsDECT allowed characterization of most calculi (93%) despite image quality deterioration due to photon starvation/streak artifacts in up to 20% of material density images. Stone size and patient weight were predictors of stone composition determination on DECT, and small calculi in very large patients may not be characterized.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗