Results for “temporal learning” — Page 55

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

fPINNs: Fractional Physics-Informed Neural Networks

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), introduced, are effective in solving integer-order partial differential equations (PDEs) based on scattered and noisy data. PINNs employ standard feedforward neural networks (NNs) with the PDEs explicitly encoded into the NN using automatic differentiation, while the sum of the mean-squared PDE residuals and the mean-squared error in initial-boundary conditions is minimized with respect to the NN parameters. Here we extend PINNs to fractional PINNs (fPINNs) to solve space-time fractional advection-diffusion equations (fractional ADEs), and we study systematically their convergence, hence explaining both fPINNs and PINNs for the first time. Specifically, we demonstrate their accuracy and effectiveness in solving multidimensional forward and inverse problems with forcing terms whose values are only known at randomly scattered spatio-temporal coordinates (black-box (BB) forcing terms). A novel element of the fPINNs is the hybrid approach that we introduce for constructing the residual in the loss function using both automatic differentiation for the integer-order operators and numerical discretization for the fractional operators. This approach bypasses the difficulties stemming from the fact that automatic differentiation is not applicable to fractional operators because the standard chain rule in integer calculus is not valid in fractional calculus. To discretize the fractional operators, we employ the Grünwald--Letnikov (GL) formula in one-dimensional fractional ADEs and the vector GL formula in conjunction with the directional fractional Laplacian in two- and three-dimensional fractional ADEs. We first consider the one-dimensional fractional Poisson equation and compare the convergence of the fPINNs against the finite difference method (FDM). We present the solution convergence using both the mean L 2 error as well as the standard deviation due to sensitivity to NN parameter initializations. Using different GL formulas we observe first-, second-, and third-order convergence rates for small size training sets but the error saturates for larger training sets. We explain these results by analyzing the four sources of numerical errors due to discretization, sampling, NN approximation, and optimization. The total error decays monotonically (below 10 –5 for a third-order GL formula) but it saturates beyond that point due to the optimization error. We also analyze the relative balance between discretization and sampling errors and observe that the sampling size and the number of discretization points (auxiliary points) should be comparable to achieve the highest accuracy. As we increase the depth of the NN up to certain value, the mean error decreases and the standard deviation increases, whereas the width has essentially no effect unless its value is either too small or too large. We next consider time-dependent fractional ADEs and compare white-box (WB) and BB forcing. We observe that for the WB forcing, our results are similar to the aforementioned cases; however, for the BB forcing fPINNs outperform FDM. Subsequently, we consider multidimensional time-, space-, and space-time-fractional ADEs using the directional fractional Laplacian and we observe relative errors of 10 –3 ~ 10 –4 . Lastly, we solve several inverse problems in one, two, and three dimensions to identify the fractional orders, diffusion coefficients, and transport velocities and obtain accurate results given proper initializations even in the presence of significant noise.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-204-00: Advances in Cone-Beam CT and Emerging Applications

This symposium highlights advanced cone-beam CT (CBCT) technologies in four areas of emerging application in diagnostic imaging and image-guided interventions. Each area includes research that extends the spatial, temporal, and/or contrast resolution characteristics of CBCT beyond conventional limits through advances in scanner technology, acquisition protocols, and 3D image reconstruction techniques. Dr. G. Chen (University of Wisconsin) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging. Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and a fraction of people having an acute ischemic stroke are suitable candidates for endovascular therapy. Critical factors that affect both the likelihood of successful revascularization and good clinical outcome are: 1) the time between stroke onset and revascularization; and 2) the ability to distinguish patients who have a small volume of irreversibly injured brain (ischemic core) and a large volume of ischemic but salvageable brain (penumbra) from patients with a large ischemic core and little or no penumbra. Therefore, “time is brain” in the care of the stroke patients. C-arm CBCT systems widely available in angiography suites have the potential to generate non-contrast-enhanced CBCT images to exclude the presence of hemorrhage, time-resolved CBCT angiography to evaluate the site of occlusion and collaterals, and CBCT perfusion parametric images to assess the extent of the ischemic core and penumbra, thereby fulfilling the imaging requirements of a “one-stop-shop” in the angiography suite to reduce the time between onset and revascularization therapy. The challenges and opportunities to advance CBCT technology to fully enable the one-stop-shop C-arm CBCT platform for brain imaging will be discussed. Dr. R. Fahrig (Stanford University) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions. With the goal of providing functional information during cardiac interventions, significant effort has been expended to improve the quantitative accuracy of C-arm CBCT reconstructions. The challenge is to improve image quality while providing very short turnaround between data acquisition and volume data visualization. Corrections for x-ray scatter, view aliasing and patient motion that require no more than 2 iterations keep processing time short while reducing artifact. Fast, multi-sweep acquisitions can be used to permit assessment of left ventricular function, and visualization of radiofrequency lesions created to treat arrhythmias. Workflows for each imaging goal have been developed and validated against gold standard clinical CT or histology. The challenges, opportunities, and limitations of the new functional C-arm CBCT imaging techniques will be discussed. Dr. W. Zbijewski (Johns Hopkins University) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Orthopaedics and Bone Health Imaging. Cone-beam CT is particularly well suited for imaging of musculoskeletal extremities. Owing to the high spatial resolution of flat-panel detectors, CBCT can surpass conventional CT in imaging tasks involving bone visualization, quantitative analysis of subchondral trabecular structure, and visualization and monitoring of subtle fractures that are common in orthopedic radiology. A dedicated CBCT platform has been developed that offers flexibility in system design and provides not only a compact configuration with improved logistics for extremities imaging but also enables novel diagnostic capabilities such as imaging of weight-bearing lower extremities in a natural stance. The design, development and clinical performance of dedicated extremities CBCT systems will be presented. Advanced capabilities for quantitative volumetric assessment of joint space morphology, dual-energy image-based quantification of bone composition, and in-vivo analysis of bone microarchitecture will be discussed, along with emerging applications in the diagnosis of arthritis and osteoporosis and assessment of novel therapies. Finally, Dr. J. Boone (UC Davis) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging. Breast CT has been studied as an imaging tool for diagnostic breast evaluation and for potential breast cancer screening. The breast CT application lends itself to CBCT because of the small dimensions of the breast, the tapered shape of the breast towards higher cone angle, and the fact that there are no bones in the breast. The performance of various generations of breast CT scanners developed in recent years will be discussed, focusing on advances in spatial resolution and image noise characteristics. The results will also demonstrate the results of clinical trials using both computer and human observers. Learning Objectives: Understand the challenges, key technological advances, and emerging opportunities of CBCT in: Brain perfusion imaging, including assessment of ischemic stroke Cardiac imaging for functional assessment in cardiac interventions Orthopedics imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma, arthritis, and osteoporosis Breast imaging for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Work presented in this symposium includes research support by: Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Chen); NIH and Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Fahrig); NIH and Carestream Health (Dr. Zbijewski); and NIH (Dr. Boone)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-204-01: Advances in C-Arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging

This symposium highlights advanced cone-beam CT (CBCT) technologies in four areas of emerging application in diagnostic imaging and image-guided interventions. Each area includes research that extends the spatial, temporal, and/or contrast resolution characteristics of CBCT beyond conventional limits through advances in scanner technology, acquisition protocols, and 3D image reconstruction techniques. Dr. G. Chen (University of Wisconsin) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging. Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and a fraction of people having an acute ischemic stroke are suitable candidates for endovascular therapy. Critical factors that affect both the likelihood of successful revascularization and good clinical outcome are: 1) the time between stroke onset and revascularization; and 2) the ability to distinguish patients who have a small volume of irreversibly injured brain (ischemic core) and a large volume of ischemic but salvageable brain (penumbra) from patients with a large ischemic core and little or no penumbra. Therefore, “time is brain” in the care of the stroke patients. C-arm CBCT systems widely available in angiography suites have the potential to generate non-contrast-enhanced CBCT images to exclude the presence of hemorrhage, time-resolved CBCT angiography to evaluate the site of occlusion and collaterals, and CBCT perfusion parametric images to assess the extent of the ischemic core and penumbra, thereby fulfilling the imaging requirements of a “one-stop-shop” in the angiography suite to reduce the time between onset and revascularization therapy. The challenges and opportunities to advance CBCT technology to fully enable the one-stop-shop C-arm CBCT platform for brain imaging will be discussed. Dr. R. Fahrig (Stanford University) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions. With the goal of providing functional information during cardiac interventions, significant effort has been expended to improve the quantitative accuracy of C-arm CBCT reconstructions. The challenge is to improve image quality while providing very short turnaround between data acquisition and volume data visualization. Corrections for x-ray scatter, view aliasing and patient motion that require no more than 2 iterations keep processing time short while reducing artifact. Fast, multi-sweep acquisitions can be used to permit assessment of left ventricular function, and visualization of radiofrequency lesions created to treat arrhythmias. Workflows for each imaging goal have been developed and validated against gold standard clinical CT or histology. The challenges, opportunities, and limitations of the new functional C-arm CBCT imaging techniques will be discussed. Dr. W. Zbijewski (Johns Hopkins University) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Orthopaedics and Bone Health Imaging. Cone-beam CT is particularly well suited for imaging of musculoskeletal extremities. Owing to the high spatial resolution of flat-panel detectors, CBCT can surpass conventional CT in imaging tasks involving bone visualization, quantitative analysis of subchondral trabecular structure, and visualization and monitoring of subtle fractures that are common in orthopedic radiology. A dedicated CBCT platform has been developed that offers flexibility in system design and provides not only a compact configuration with improved logistics for extremities imaging but also enables novel diagnostic capabilities such as imaging of weight-bearing lower extremities in a natural stance. The design, development and clinical performance of dedicated extremities CBCT systems will be presented. Advanced capabilities for quantitative volumetric assessment of joint space morphology, dual-energy image-based quantification of bone composition, and in-vivo analysis of bone microarchitecture will be discussed, along with emerging applications in the diagnosis of arthritis and osteoporosis and assessment of novel therapies. Finally, Dr. J. Boone (UC Davis) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging. Breast CT has been studied as an imaging tool for diagnostic breast evaluation and for potential breast cancer screening. The breast CT application lends itself to CBCT because of the small dimensions of the breast, the tapered shape of the breast towards higher cone angle, and the fact that there are no bones in the breast. The performance of various generations of breast CT scanners developed in recent years will be discussed, focusing on advances in spatial resolution and image noise characteristics. The results will also demonstrate the results of clinical trials using both computer and human observers. Learning Objectives: Understand the challenges, key technological advances, and emerging opportunities of CBCT in: Brain perfusion imaging, including assessment of ischemic stroke Cardiac imaging for functional assessment in cardiac interventions Orthopedics imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma, arthritis, and osteoporosis Breast imaging for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Work presented in this symposium includes research support by: Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Chen); NIH and Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Fahrig); NIH and Carestream Health (Dr. Zbijewski); and NIH (Dr. Boone)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-204-02: Advances in C-Arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions

This symposium highlights advanced cone-beam CT (CBCT) technologies in four areas of emerging application in diagnostic imaging and image-guided interventions. Each area includes research that extends the spatial, temporal, and/or contrast resolution characteristics of CBCT beyond conventional limits through advances in scanner technology, acquisition protocols, and 3D image reconstruction techniques. Dr. G. Chen (University of Wisconsin) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging. Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and a fraction of people having an acute ischemic stroke are suitable candidates for endovascular therapy. Critical factors that affect both the likelihood of successful revascularization and good clinical outcome are: 1) the time between stroke onset and revascularization; and 2) the ability to distinguish patients who have a small volume of irreversibly injured brain (ischemic core) and a large volume of ischemic but salvageable brain (penumbra) from patients with a large ischemic core and little or no penumbra. Therefore, “time is brain” in the care of the stroke patients. C-arm CBCT systems widely available in angiography suites have the potential to generate non-contrast-enhanced CBCT images to exclude the presence of hemorrhage, time-resolved CBCT angiography to evaluate the site of occlusion and collaterals, and CBCT perfusion parametric images to assess the extent of the ischemic core and penumbra, thereby fulfilling the imaging requirements of a “one-stop-shop” in the angiography suite to reduce the time between onset and revascularization therapy. The challenges and opportunities to advance CBCT technology to fully enable the one-stop-shop C-arm CBCT platform for brain imaging will be discussed. Dr. R. Fahrig (Stanford University) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions. With the goal of providing functional information during cardiac interventions, significant effort has been expended to improve the quantitative accuracy of C-arm CBCT reconstructions. The challenge is to improve image quality while providing very short turnaround between data acquisition and volume data visualization. Corrections for x-ray scatter, view aliasing and patient motion that require no more than 2 iterations keep processing time short while reducing artifact. Fast, multi-sweep acquisitions can be used to permit assessment of left ventricular function, and visualization of radiofrequency lesions created to treat arrhythmias. Workflows for each imaging goal have been developed and validated against gold standard clinical CT or histology. The challenges, opportunities, and limitations of the new functional C-arm CBCT imaging techniques will be discussed. Dr. W. Zbijewski (Johns Hopkins University) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Orthopaedics and Bone Health Imaging. Cone-beam CT is particularly well suited for imaging of musculoskeletal extremities. Owing to the high spatial resolution of flat-panel detectors, CBCT can surpass conventional CT in imaging tasks involving bone visualization, quantitative analysis of subchondral trabecular structure, and visualization and monitoring of subtle fractures that are common in orthopedic radiology. A dedicated CBCT platform has been developed that offers flexibility in system design and provides not only a compact configuration with improved logistics for extremities imaging but also enables novel diagnostic capabilities such as imaging of weight-bearing lower extremities in a natural stance. The design, development and clinical performance of dedicated extremities CBCT systems will be presented. Advanced capabilities for quantitative volumetric assessment of joint space morphology, dual-energy image-based quantification of bone composition, and in-vivo analysis of bone microarchitecture will be discussed, along with emerging applications in the diagnosis of arthritis and osteoporosis and assessment of novel therapies. Finally, Dr. J. Boone (UC Davis) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging. Breast CT has been studied as an imaging tool for diagnostic breast evaluation and for potential breast cancer screening. The breast CT application lends itself to CBCT because of the small dimensions of the breast, the tapered shape of the breast towards higher cone angle, and the fact that there are no bones in the breast. The performance of various generations of breast CT scanners developed in recent years will be discussed, focusing on advances in spatial resolution and image noise characteristics. The results will also demonstrate the results of clinical trials using both computer and human observers. Learning Objectives: Understand the challenges, key technological advances, and emerging opportunities of CBCT in: Brain perfusion imaging, including assessment of ischemic stroke Cardiac imaging for functional assessment in cardiac interventions Orthopedics imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma, arthritis, and osteoporosis Breast imaging for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Work presented in this symposium includes research support by: Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Chen); NIH and Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Fahrig); NIH and Carestream Health (Dr. Zbijewski); and NIH (Dr. Boone)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-204-03: Advances in CBCT for Orhtopaedics and Bone Health Imaging

This symposium highlights advanced cone-beam CT (CBCT) technologies in four areas of emerging application in diagnostic imaging and image-guided interventions. Each area includes research that extends the spatial, temporal, and/or contrast resolution characteristics of CBCT beyond conventional limits through advances in scanner technology, acquisition protocols, and 3D image reconstruction techniques. Dr. G. Chen (University of Wisconsin) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging. Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and a fraction of people having an acute ischemic stroke are suitable candidates for endovascular therapy. Critical factors that affect both the likelihood of successful revascularization and good clinical outcome are: 1) the time between stroke onset and revascularization; and 2) the ability to distinguish patients who have a small volume of irreversibly injured brain (ischemic core) and a large volume of ischemic but salvageable brain (penumbra) from patients with a large ischemic core and little or no penumbra. Therefore, “time is brain” in the care of the stroke patients. C-arm CBCT systems widely available in angiography suites have the potential to generate non-contrast-enhanced CBCT images to exclude the presence of hemorrhage, time-resolved CBCT angiography to evaluate the site of occlusion and collaterals, and CBCT perfusion parametric images to assess the extent of the ischemic core and penumbra, thereby fulfilling the imaging requirements of a “one-stop-shop” in the angiography suite to reduce the time between onset and revascularization therapy. The challenges and opportunities to advance CBCT technology to fully enable the one-stop-shop C-arm CBCT platform for brain imaging will be discussed. Dr. R. Fahrig (Stanford University) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions. With the goal of providing functional information during cardiac interventions, significant effort has been expended to improve the quantitative accuracy of C-arm CBCT reconstructions. The challenge is to improve image quality while providing very short turnaround between data acquisition and volume data visualization. Corrections for x-ray scatter, view aliasing and patient motion that require no more than 2 iterations keep processing time short while reducing artifact. Fast, multi-sweep acquisitions can be used to permit assessment of left ventricular function, and visualization of radiofrequency lesions created to treat arrhythmias. Workflows for each imaging goal have been developed and validated against gold standard clinical CT or histology. The challenges, opportunities, and limitations of the new functional C-arm CBCT imaging techniques will be discussed. Dr. W. Zbijewski (Johns Hopkins University) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Orthopaedics and Bone Health Imaging. Cone-beam CT is particularly well suited for imaging of musculoskeletal extremities. Owing to the high spatial resolution of flat-panel detectors, CBCT can surpass conventional CT in imaging tasks involving bone visualization, quantitative analysis of subchondral trabecular structure, and visualization and monitoring of subtle fractures that are common in orthopedic radiology. A dedicated CBCT platform has been developed that offers flexibility in system design and provides not only a compact configuration with improved logistics for extremities imaging but also enables novel diagnostic capabilities such as imaging of weight-bearing lower extremities in a natural stance. The design, development and clinical performance of dedicated extremities CBCT systems will be presented. Advanced capabilities for quantitative volumetric assessment of joint space morphology, dual-energy image-based quantification of bone composition, and in-vivo analysis of bone microarchitecture will be discussed, along with emerging applications in the diagnosis of arthritis and osteoporosis and assessment of novel therapies. Finally, Dr. J. Boone (UC Davis) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging. Breast CT has been studied as an imaging tool for diagnostic breast evaluation and for potential breast cancer screening. The breast CT application lends itself to CBCT because of the small dimensions of the breast, the tapered shape of the breast towards higher cone angle, and the fact that there are no bones in the breast. The performance of various generations of breast CT scanners developed in recent years will be discussed, focusing on advances in spatial resolution and image noise characteristics. The results will also demonstrate the results of clinical trials using both computer and human observers. Learning Objectives: Understand the challenges, key technological advances, and emerging opportunities of CBCT in: Brain perfusion imaging, including assessment of ischemic stroke Cardiac imaging for functional assessment in cardiac interventions Orthopedics imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma, arthritis, and osteoporosis Breast imaging for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Work presented in this symposium includes research support by: Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Chen); NIH and Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Fahrig); NIH and Carestream Health (Dr. Zbijewski); and NIH (Dr. Boone)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-204-04: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging

This symposium highlights advanced cone-beam CT (CBCT) technologies in four areas of emerging application in diagnostic imaging and image-guided interventions. Each area includes research that extends the spatial, temporal, and/or contrast resolution characteristics of CBCT beyond conventional limits through advances in scanner technology, acquisition protocols, and 3D image reconstruction techniques. Dr. G. Chen (University of Wisconsin) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Brain Perfusion Imaging. Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and a fraction of people having an acute ischemic stroke are suitable candidates for endovascular therapy. Critical factors that affect both the likelihood of successful revascularization and good clinical outcome are: 1) the time between stroke onset and revascularization; and 2) the ability to distinguish patients who have a small volume of irreversibly injured brain (ischemic core) and a large volume of ischemic but salvageable brain (penumbra) from patients with a large ischemic core and little or no penumbra. Therefore, “time is brain” in the care of the stroke patients. C-arm CBCT systems widely available in angiography suites have the potential to generate non-contrast-enhanced CBCT images to exclude the presence of hemorrhage, time-resolved CBCT angiography to evaluate the site of occlusion and collaterals, and CBCT perfusion parametric images to assess the extent of the ischemic core and penumbra, thereby fulfilling the imaging requirements of a “one-stop-shop” in the angiography suite to reduce the time between onset and revascularization therapy. The challenges and opportunities to advance CBCT technology to fully enable the one-stop-shop C-arm CBCT platform for brain imaging will be discussed. Dr. R. Fahrig (Stanford University) will present on the topic: Advances in C-arm CBCT for Cardiac Interventions. With the goal of providing functional information during cardiac interventions, significant effort has been expended to improve the quantitative accuracy of C-arm CBCT reconstructions. The challenge is to improve image quality while providing very short turnaround between data acquisition and volume data visualization. Corrections for x-ray scatter, view aliasing and patient motion that require no more than 2 iterations keep processing time short while reducing artifact. Fast, multi-sweep acquisitions can be used to permit assessment of left ventricular function, and visualization of radiofrequency lesions created to treat arrhythmias. Workflows for each imaging goal have been developed and validated against gold standard clinical CT or histology. The challenges, opportunities, and limitations of the new functional C-arm CBCT imaging techniques will be discussed. Dr. W. Zbijewski (Johns Hopkins University) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Orthopaedics and Bone Health Imaging. Cone-beam CT is particularly well suited for imaging of musculoskeletal extremities. Owing to the high spatial resolution of flat-panel detectors, CBCT can surpass conventional CT in imaging tasks involving bone visualization, quantitative analysis of subchondral trabecular structure, and visualization and monitoring of subtle fractures that are common in orthopedic radiology. A dedicated CBCT platform has been developed that offers flexibility in system design and provides not only a compact configuration with improved logistics for extremities imaging but also enables novel diagnostic capabilities such as imaging of weight-bearing lower extremities in a natural stance. The design, development and clinical performance of dedicated extremities CBCT systems will be presented. Advanced capabilities for quantitative volumetric assessment of joint space morphology, dual-energy image-based quantification of bone composition, and in-vivo analysis of bone microarchitecture will be discussed, along with emerging applications in the diagnosis of arthritis and osteoporosis and assessment of novel therapies. Finally, Dr. J. Boone (UC Davis) will present on the topic: Advances in CBCT for Breast Imaging. Breast CT has been studied as an imaging tool for diagnostic breast evaluation and for potential breast cancer screening. The breast CT application lends itself to CBCT because of the small dimensions of the breast, the tapered shape of the breast towards higher cone angle, and the fact that there are no bones in the breast. The performance of various generations of breast CT scanners developed in recent years will be discussed, focusing on advances in spatial resolution and image noise characteristics. The results will also demonstrate the results of clinical trials using both computer and human observers. Learning Objectives: Understand the challenges, key technological advances, and emerging opportunities of CBCT in: Brain perfusion imaging, including assessment of ischemic stroke Cardiac imaging for functional assessment in cardiac interventions Orthopedics imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma, arthritis, and osteoporosis Breast imaging for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Work presented in this symposium includes research support by: Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Chen); NIH and Siemens Healthcare (Dr. Fahrig); NIH and Carestream Health (Dr. Zbijewski); and NIH (Dr. Boone)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗