Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Performance Tools”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,135 records · Page 63
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Detection of Local Cancer Recurrence After Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer: Physician Performance Versus Radiomic Assessment

Purpose: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is a guideline-specified treatment option for early-stage lung cancer. However, significant posttreatment fibrosis can occur and obfuscate the detection of local recurrence. The goal of this study was to assess physician ability to detect timely local recurrence and to compare physician performance with a radiomics tool. Methods and Materials: Posttreatment computed tomography (CT) scans (n=182) from 45 patients treated with SABR (15 with local recurrence matched to 30 with no local recurrence) were used to measure physician and radiomic performance in assessing response. Scans were individually scored by 3 thoracic radiation oncologists and 3 thoracic radiologists, all of whom were blinded to clinical outcomes. Radiomic features were extracted from the same images. Performances of the physician assessors and the radiomics signature were compared. Results: When taking into account all CT scans during the whole follow-up period, median sensitivity for physician assessment of local recurrence was 83% (range, 67%-100%), and specificity was 75% (range, 67%-87%), with only moderate interobserver agreement (κ = 0.54) and a median time to detection of recurrence of 15.5 months. When determining the early prediction of recurrence within <6 months after SABR, physicians assessed the majority of images as benign injury/no recurrence, with a mean error of 35%, false positive rate (FPR) of 1%, and false negative rate (FNR) of 99%. At the same time point, a radiomic signature consisting of 5 image-appearance features demonstrated excellent discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85, classification error of 24%, FPR of 24%, and FNR of 23%. Conclusions: These results suggest that radiomics can detect early changes associated with local recurrence that are not typically considered by physicians. This decision support system could potentially allow for early salvage therapy of patients with local recurrence after SABR.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2025

mvBayesPy

SAND2025-11476O The mvBayesPy tool is a Python package that performs multivariate Bayesian analysis on generic data. It includes tools for regression modeling, diagnosis, basis decomposition, sensitivity analysis and visualization. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.

Tucker, James [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Live↗
NASA NTRS1991

The cryogenic on-orbit liquid analytical tool (COOLANT) - A computer program for evaluating the thermodynamic performance of orbital cryogen storage facilities

The United States plans to establish a permanent manned presence at the Space Station Freedom in low earth orbit (LEO) and then carry out exploration of the solar system from this base. These plans may require orbital cryogenic propellant storage depots. The COOLANT program has been developed to analyze the thermodynamic performance of these depots to support design tradeoff studies. It was developed as part of the Long Term Cryogenic Storage Facility Systems Study for NASA/MSFC. This paper discusses the program structure and capabilities of the COOLANT program. In addition, the results of an analysis of a 200,000 lbm hydrogen/oxygen storage depot tankset using COOLANT are presented.

Taylor, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Software reengineering

Today's software systems generally use obsolete technology, are not integrated properly with other software systems, and are difficult and costly to maintain. The discipline of reverse engineering is becoming prominent as organizations try to move their systems up to more modern and maintainable technology in a cost effective manner. JSC created a significant set of tools to develop and maintain FORTRAN and C code during development of the Space Shuttle. This tool set forms the basis for an integrated environment to re-engineer existing code into modern software engineering structures which are then easier and less costly to maintain and which allow a fairly straightforward translation into other target languages. The environment will support these structures and practices even in areas where the language definition and compilers do not enforce good software engineering. The knowledge and data captured using the reverse engineering tools is passed to standard forward engineering tools to redesign or perform major upgrades to software systems in a much more cost effective manner than using older technologies. A beta vision of the environment was released in Mar. 1991. The commercial potential for such re-engineering tools is very great. CASE TRENDS magazine reported it to be the primary concern of over four hundred of the top MIS executives.

Fridge, Ernest M., III↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Sensory Augmentation as A Non-Pharmaceutical Tool to Mitigate Motion Sickness and Enhance Sensorimotor Task Performance: A Pilot Study Using Simulated Capsule Wave Motion

Wave motion during capsule recovery operations can result in motion sickness and performance decrements exacerbating reentry sickness following long duration spaceflight. The purpose of this pilot study was (1) to validate a capsule wave motion simulation as a platform to evaluate motion sickness countermeasures and (2) to evaluate a sensory augmentation belt providing vibrotactile feedback of gravitational upright. Ten healthy subjects ages 38.0 ± 10.1 (6M|4F) were exposed to complex wave motions on a six degree-of-freedom platform that included pitch, roll, and heave at provocative stimulus frequencies (0.1-0.25 Hz) while seated in an illuminated cabin deprived of external visual cues. Subjects reported acute symptoms for up to three consecutive 15 min trials or until they reached a motion sickness endpoint of 8 pts on the Pensacola Diagnostic Index (PDI). Five subjects were randomly assigned to the Sensory Augmentation (SA) group while the other five served as controls (CN group). Based on a Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire, the two groups had similar motion sickness histories (susceptibility percentile ranking of CN group = 27.5 ± 63.6 in the CN group versus 27.5 ± 37.0 in the SA group, median ± IQR). The vibrotactile feedback consisted of a single array of 8 electromechanical tactors positioned around the torso on an adjustable belt (Engineering Acoustics, Inc) that utilized an integrated inertial measurement unit (IMU) to indicate the direction of upright (e.g., subject’s back tactor on during forward tilt). During each wave motion trial subjects performed a battery of four different tasks: tracking Earth vertical using a joystick with and without a secondary task (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test), an eye-hand target acquisition task on a cabin-fixed tablet, and the psychomotor vigilance test (PVT). All ten subjects reported varying levels of motion sickness with 6 of 10 reaching a symptom endpoint. Interestingly, subjects anecdotally reported that engagement in the joystick tracking task was less provocative than tasks involving the cabin-fixed tablet or periods of no activity. Sensory augmentation appeared to delay symptom onset, with 2 of 5 subjects reaching an endpoint within the first 15 min trial in the CN group versus none in the SA group (PDI after 15 min = 6.0 ± 2.5 in the CN group versus 3.4 ± 2.5 in the SA group, mean ±std). Sensory augmentation also improved performance on the joystick tracking task at lower stimulus frequencies (0.1 Hz in roll and 0.2 Hz in pitch). Both CN and SA groups maintained a consistent level of performance on the eye-hand target acquisition and PVT throughout the baseline (no motion) and wave motion periods. Our results validated that the simulated capsule wave motion paradigm provides an effective motion sickness stressor. This paradigm is currently being used to investigate the efficacy of intranasal scopolamine to mitigate motion sickness. Sensory augmentation using vibrotactile feedback appears to improve spatial awareness and delay symptom onset during complex passive motion. One advantage of this portable belt design is that it incorporates all tactor drive and IMU circuitry and therefore could continue to be worn by crewmembers and serve as a balance aid during egress and ambulation with recovery operations.

A M Bollinger↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model-based economic analysis under uncertainty for PFAS treatment by granular activated carbon and ion exchange technologies

Recent drinking water regulations have imposed the need for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remediation. In response, treatment facilities may be required to retrofit existing treatment schemes to treat PFAS below maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Adsorption technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange (IX) have been demonstrated to be effective; however, there are limited techno-economic metrics available which provide guidance on technology selection and design for diverse PFAS-containing source water conditions. Process systems engineering (PSE) tools which can traditionally perform these analyses are hindered by the data availability, model validity, and understanding of treatment phenomena for emerging contaminants. This work employs published data regressions, statistical models, process models, techno-economic analyses, and other process systems tools in a model-based uncertainty framework to consider the limitations of emerging contaminant research. Through this analysis framework, economic results are provided as probabilistic distributions based on the uncertainty of the models and diverse conditions that treatment facilities experience.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
NASA NTRS1992

Local design optimization for composite transport fuselage crown panels

Composite transport fuselage crown panel design and manufacturing plans were optimized to have projected cost and weight savings of 18 and 45 percent, respectively. These savings are close to those quoted as overall NASA Advanced Composite Technology (ACT) program goals. Three local optimization tasks were found to influence the cost and weight of fuselage crown panels. The effects are summarized of each task and the task associated with a design cost model is described in detail. Studies were performed to evaluate the relationship between manufacturing cost and design details. A design tool was developed to aid in these studies. The development of the design tool included combining cost and performance constraints with a random search optimization algorithm. The resulting software was used in a series of optimization studies that evaluated the sensitivity of design variables, guidelines, criteria, and material selection on cost. The effect of blending adjacent design points in a full scale panel subjected to changing load distributions and local variations was shown to be important. Technical issues and directions for future work were identified.

Swanson, G. D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Local design optimization for composite transport fuselage crown panels

Composite transport fuselage crown panel design and manufacturing plans were optimized to have projected cost and weight savings of 18 percent and 45 percent, respectively. These savings are close to those quoted as overall NASA ACT program goals. Three local optimization tasks were found to influence the cost and weight of fuselage crown panels. This paper summarizes the effect of each task and describes in detail the task associated with a design cost model. Studies were performed to evaluate the relationship between manufacturing cost and design details. A design tool was developed to aid in these investigations. The development of the design tool included combining cost and performance constraints with a random search optimization algorithm. The resulting software was used in a series of optimization studies that evaluated the sensitivity of design variables, guidelines, criteria, and material selection on cost. The effect of blending adjacent design points in a full scale panel subjected to changing load distributions and local variations was shown to be important. Technical issues and directions for future work were identified.

Swanson, G. D.↗
NASA NTRS1975

High reliability bond program using small diameter aluminum wire

The program was undertaken to characterize the performance of small diameter aluminum wire ultrasonically bonded to conductors commonly encountered in hybrid assemblies, and to recommend guidelines for improving this performance. Wire, 25.4, 38.1 and 50.8 um (1, 1.5 and 2 mil), was used with bonding metallization consisting of thick film gold, thin film gold and aluminum as well as conventional aluminum pads on semiconductor chips. The chief tool for evaluating the performance was the double bond pull test in conjunction with a 72 hour - 150 C heat soak and -65 C to +150 C thermal cycling. In practice the thermal cycling was found to have relatively little effect compared to the heat soak. Pull strength will decrease after heat soak as a result of annealing of the aluminum wire; when bonded to thick film gold, the pull strength decreased by about 50% (weakening of the bond interface was the major cause of the reduction). Bonds to thin film gold lost about 30 - 40% of their initial pull strenth; weakening of the wire itself at the bond heel was the predominant cause. Bonds to aluminum substrate metallization lost only about 22%. Bonds between thick and thin film gold substrate metallization and semiconductor chips substantiated the previous conclusions but also showed that in about 20 to 25% of the cases, bond interface failure occurred at the semiconductor chip.

Macha, M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Community Coordinated Modeling Center Support of Operations: Real-Time Simulations and V & V.

In support of Operations Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) performing validation and verification of space weather models. To identify suitable metrics the CCMC focus on parameters most useful to operations that CCMC resident models can provide. The real time simulations carried out at CCMC are an essential tool to test model performance and stability by using input conditions that may occur in nature at any time. Since 2001, the magnetospheric MHD model BATSRUS has been run in real time using ACE real time data. CCMC staff developed an experimental real-time system that controls uploading of the real-time ACE data, monitors continuous model execution, initiates automatic recovery procedure in case of data gaps or hardware failures, synchronizes BATSRUS and FRC runs, and periodically runs IDL based visualization software.

Kuznetsova, M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

ATAMM analysis tool

Diagnostics software for analyzing Algorithm to Architecture Mapping Model (ATAMM) based concurrent processing systems is presented. ATAMM is capable of modeling the execution of large grain algorithms on distributed data flow architectures. The tool graphically displays algorithm activities and processor activities for evaluation of the behavior and performance of an ATAMM based system. The tool's measurement capabilities indicate computing speed, throughput, concurrency, resource utilization, and overhead. Evaluations are performed on a simulated system using the software tool. The tool is used to estimate theoretical lower bound performance. Analysis results are shown to be comparable to the predictions.

Jones, Robert↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

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-201-01: 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↗
NASA NTRS1980

Tools to aid the specification and design of flight software, appendix B

The tasks that are normally performed during the specification and architecture design stages of software development are identified. Ways that tools could perform, or aid the performance, of such tasks are also identified. Much of the verification and analysis that is suggested is currently rarely performed during these early stages, but it is believed that this analysis should be done as early as possible so as to detect errors as early as possible.

Bristow, G.↗
DOE OSTI2014

Advanced Simulation & Computing FY15 Implementation Plan Volume 2, Rev. 0.5

The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is a single, highly integrated technical program for maintaining the surety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The SSP uses nuclear test data, computational modeling and simulation, and experimental facilities to advance understanding of nuclear weapons. It includes stockpile surveillance, experimental research, development and engineering programs, and an appropriately scaled production capability to support stockpile requirements. This integrated national program requires the continued use of experimental facilities and programs, and the computational enhancements to support these programs. The Advanced Simulation and Computing Program (ASC) is a cornerstone of the SSP, providing simulation capabilities and computational resources that support annual stockpile assessment and certification, study advanced nuclear weapons design and manufacturing processes, analyze accident scenarios and weapons aging, and provide the tools to enable stockpile Life Extension Programs (LEPs) and the resolution of Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs). This requires a balance of resource, including technical staff, hardware, simulation software, and computer science solutions. As the program approaches the end of its second decade, ASC is intently focused on increasing predictive capabilities in a three-dimensional (3D) simulation environment while maintaining support to the SSP. The program continues to improve its unique tools for solving progressively more difficult stockpile problems (sufficient resolution, dimensionality, and scientific details), quantify critical margins and uncertainties, and resolve increasingly difficult analyses needed for the SSP. Where possible, the program also enables the use of high-performance simulation and computing tools to address broader national security needs, such as foreign nuclear weapon assessments and counternuclear terrorism.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗