The use of a systemic therapy checklist improves the quality of data acquisition and recording in multicentre trials. A study of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group

1997 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1045-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Verweij ◽  
O.S. Nielsen ◽  
P. Therasse ◽  
A.T. van Oosterom
2013 ◽  
Vol 318 ◽  
pp. 572-575
Author(s):  
Li Li Yu ◽  
Yu Hong Li ◽  
Ai Feng Wang

In this paper a quality monitoring system for seismic while drilling (SWD) that integrates the whole process of data acquisition was developed. The acquisition equipment, network status and signals of accelerometer and geophone were monitored real-time. With fast signal analysis and quality evaluation, the acquisition parameters and drilling engineering parameters can be adjusted timely. The application of the system can improve the quality of data acquisition and provide subsequent processing and interpretation with high qualified reliable data.


Author(s):  
Manjunath Ramachandra

The data gathered from the sources are often noisy Poor quality of data results in business losses that keep increasing down the supply chain. The end customer finds it absolutely useless and misguiding. So, cleansing of data is to be performed immediately and automatically after the data acquisition. This chapter provides the different techniques for data cleansing and processing to achieve the same.


Author(s):  
A. Sampath ◽  
H. K. Heidemann ◽  
G. L. Stensaas

This paper provides guidelines on quantifying the relative horizontal and vertical errors observed between conjugate features in the overlapping regions of lidar data. The quantification of these errors is important because their presence quantifies the geometric quality of the data. A data set can be said to have good geometric quality if measurements of identical features, regardless of their position or orientation, yield identical results. Good geometric quality indicates that the data are produced using sensor models that are working as they are mathematically designed, and data acquisition processes are not introducing any unforeseen distortion in the data. High geometric quality also leads to high geolocation accuracy of the data when the data acquisition process includes coupling the sensor with geopositioning systems. Current specifications (e.g. Heidemann 2014) do not provide adequate means to quantitatively measure these errors, even though they are required to be reported. Current accuracy measurement and reporting practices followed in the industry and as recommended by data specification documents also potentially underestimate the inter-swath errors, including the presence of systematic errors in lidar data. Hence they pose a risk to the user in terms of data acceptance (i.e. a higher potential for Type II error indicating risk of accepting potentially unsuitable data). For example, if the overlap area is too small or if the sampled locations are close to the center of overlap, or if the errors are sampled in flat regions when there are residual pitch errors in the data, the resultant Root Mean Square Differences (RMSD) can still be small. To avoid this, the following are suggested to be used as criteria for defining the inter-swath quality of data: <br><br> a) Median Discrepancy Angle <br><br> b) Mean and RMSD of Horizontal Errors using DQM measured on sloping surfaces <br><br> c) RMSD for sampled locations from flat areas (defined as areas with less than 5 degrees of slope) <br><br> It is suggested that 4000-5000 points are uniformly sampled in the overlapping regions of the point cloud, and depending on the surface roughness, to measure the discrepancy between swaths. Care must be taken to sample only areas of single return points only. Point-to-Plane distance based data quality measures are determined for each sample point. These measurements are used to determine the above mentioned parameters. This paper details the measurements and analysis of measurements required to determine these metrics, i.e. Discrepancy Angle, Mean and RMSD of errors in flat regions and horizontal errors obtained using measurements extracted from sloping regions (slope greater than 10 degrees). The research is a result of an ad-hoc joint working group of the US Geological Survey and the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Airborne Lidar Committee.


Sarcoma ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Reichardt ◽  
Michael Leahy ◽  
Xavier Garcia del Muro ◽  
Stefano Ferrari ◽  
Javier Martin ◽  
...  

The aim of the study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among metastatic soft tissue (mSTS) or bone sarcoma (mBS) patients who had attained a favourable response to chemotherapy. We employed the EORTC QLQ-C30, the 3-item Cancer-Related Symptoms Questionnaire, and the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL was evaluated overall and by health state in 120 mSTS/mBS patients enrolled in the SABINE study across nine countries in Europe and North America. Utility was estimated from responses to the EQ-5D instrument using UK population-based weights. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.69 for the pooled patient sample with little variation across health states. However, patients with progressive disease reported a clinically significant lower utility (0.56). Among disease symptoms, pain and respiratory symptoms are common. This study showed that mSTS/mBS is associated with reduced HRQoL and utility among patients with metastatic disease.


Author(s):  
Beril Sirmacek ◽  
Yueqian Shen ◽  
Roderik Lindenbergh ◽  
Sisi Zlatanova ◽  
Abdoulaye Diakite

We present a comparison of point cloud generation and quality of data acquired by Zebedee (Zeb1) and Leica C10 devices which are used in the same building interior. Both sensor devices come with different practical and technical advantages. As it could be expected, these advantages come with some drawbacks. Therefore, depending on the requirements of the project, it is important to have a vision about what to expect from different sensors. In this paper, we provide a detailed analysis of the point clouds of the same room interior acquired from Zeb1 and Leica C10 sensors. First, it is visually assessed how different features appear in both the Zeb1 and Leica C10 point clouds. Next, a quantitative analysis is given by comparing local point density, local noise level and stability of local normals. Finally, a simple 3D room plan is extracted from both the Zeb1 and the Leica C10 point clouds and the lengths of constructed line segments connecting corners of the room are compared. The results show that Zeb1 is far superior in ease of data acquisition. No heavy handling, hardly no measurement planning and no point cloud registration is required from the operator. The resulting point cloud has a quality in the order of centimeters, which is fine for generating a 3D interior model of a building. Our results also clearly show that fine details of for example ornaments are invisible in the Zeb1 data. If point clouds with a quality in the order of millimeters are required, still a high-end laser scanner like the Leica C10 is required, in combination with a more sophisticated, time-consuming and elaborative data acquisition and processing approach.


Author(s):  
Beril Sirmacek ◽  
Yueqian Shen ◽  
Roderik Lindenbergh ◽  
Sisi Zlatanova ◽  
Abdoulaye Diakite

We present a comparison of point cloud generation and quality of data acquired by Zebedee (Zeb1) and Leica C10 devices which are used in the same building interior. Both sensor devices come with different practical and technical advantages. As it could be expected, these advantages come with some drawbacks. Therefore, depending on the requirements of the project, it is important to have a vision about what to expect from different sensors. In this paper, we provide a detailed analysis of the point clouds of the same room interior acquired from Zeb1 and Leica C10 sensors. First, it is visually assessed how different features appear in both the Zeb1 and Leica C10 point clouds. Next, a quantitative analysis is given by comparing local point density, local noise level and stability of local normals. Finally, a simple 3D room plan is extracted from both the Zeb1 and the Leica C10 point clouds and the lengths of constructed line segments connecting corners of the room are compared. The results show that Zeb1 is far superior in ease of data acquisition. No heavy handling, hardly no measurement planning and no point cloud registration is required from the operator. The resulting point cloud has a quality in the order of centimeters, which is fine for generating a 3D interior model of a building. Our results also clearly show that fine details of for example ornaments are invisible in the Zeb1 data. If point clouds with a quality in the order of millimeters are required, still a high-end laser scanner like the Leica C10 is required, in combination with a more sophisticated, time-consuming and elaborative data acquisition and processing approach.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia M. Sachsenmaier ◽  
Ingmar Ipach ◽  
Torsten Kluba

Extremity soft tissue and bone sarcomas represent a rare group of bone and connective tissue cancers. In literature, there is little information about psycho-emotional status and impact on quality of life after the diagnosis and treatment of this kind of tumors. The aim of this survey was to define the profile of the patients at risk and their need for psychooncological care. Our self-created questionnaire consists of 71 items related to the individual emotional, mental and physical situation after the diagnosis of soft tissue and bone sarcoma. Sixty-six patients, surgically treated at our department, were included. Only 37.5% of the patients considered themselves to be completely emotional stable. Psychooncological treatment was accepted mostly by female patients, by patients with higher education level and by married patients. Emotional stability and confidence in future were associated with a strong familiar background, with numerous consultations of psychooncological service and also to gender and physical condition. Current quality of life was strongly correlated to physical condition. Thanks to our questionnaire, we disclosed few risk factors for negative emotional outcome after therapy, such as higher age, social isolation, female gender and poor physical status.


Author(s):  
A. Sampath ◽  
H. K. Heidemann ◽  
G. L. Stensaas

This paper provides guidelines on quantifying the relative horizontal and vertical errors observed between conjugate features in the overlapping regions of lidar data. The quantification of these errors is important because their presence quantifies the geometric quality of the data. A data set can be said to have good geometric quality if measurements of identical features, regardless of their position or orientation, yield identical results. Good geometric quality indicates that the data are produced using sensor models that are working as they are mathematically designed, and data acquisition processes are not introducing any unforeseen distortion in the data. High geometric quality also leads to high geolocation accuracy of the data when the data acquisition process includes coupling the sensor with geopositioning systems. Current specifications (e.g. Heidemann 2014) do not provide adequate means to quantitatively measure these errors, even though they are required to be reported. Current accuracy measurement and reporting practices followed in the industry and as recommended by data specification documents also potentially underestimate the inter-swath errors, including the presence of systematic errors in lidar data. Hence they pose a risk to the user in terms of data acceptance (i.e. a higher potential for Type II error indicating risk of accepting potentially unsuitable data). For example, if the overlap area is too small or if the sampled locations are close to the center of overlap, or if the errors are sampled in flat regions when there are residual pitch errors in the data, the resultant Root Mean Square Differences (RMSD) can still be small. To avoid this, the following are suggested to be used as criteria for defining the inter-swath quality of data: &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; a) Median Discrepancy Angle &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; b) Mean and RMSD of Horizontal Errors using DQM measured on sloping surfaces &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; c) RMSD for sampled locations from flat areas (defined as areas with less than 5 degrees of slope) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; It is suggested that 4000-5000 points are uniformly sampled in the overlapping regions of the point cloud, and depending on the surface roughness, to measure the discrepancy between swaths. Care must be taken to sample only areas of single return points only. Point-to-Plane distance based data quality measures are determined for each sample point. These measurements are used to determine the above mentioned parameters. This paper details the measurements and analysis of measurements required to determine these metrics, i.e. Discrepancy Angle, Mean and RMSD of errors in flat regions and horizontal errors obtained using measurements extracted from sloping regions (slope greater than 10 degrees). The research is a result of an ad-hoc joint working group of the US Geological Survey and the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Airborne Lidar Committee.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document