• Title/Summary/Keyword: Automatic Setup

Search Result 74, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

A Suvey on Satisfaction Measurement of Automatic Milking System in Domestic Dairy Farm (자동착유시스템 설치농가의 설치 후 만족도에 관한 실태조사)

  • Ki, Kwang-Seok;Kim, Jong-Hyeong;Jeong, Young-Hun;Kim, Yun-Ho;Park, Sung-Jai;Kim, Sang-Bum;Lee, Wang-Shik;Lee, Hyun-June;Cho, Won-Mo;Baek, Kwang-Soo;Kim, Hyeon-Shup;Kwon, Eung-Gi;Kim, Wan-Young;Jeo, Joon-Mo
    • Journal of Animal Environmental Science
    • /
    • v.17 no.1
    • /
    • pp.39-48
    • /
    • 2011
  • The present survey was conducted to provide basic information on automatic milking system (AMS) in relation to purchase motive, milk yield and quality, customer satisfaction, difficulties of operation and customer suggestions, etc. Purchase motives of AMS were insufficient labor (44%), planning of dairy experience farm (25%), better performance of high yield cows (19%) and others (6%), respectively. Average cow performance after using AMS was 30.9l/d for milk yield, 3.9% for milk fat, 9,100/ml for bacterial counts. Sixty-eight percentage of respondents were very positive in response to AMS use for their successors but 18% were negative. The AMS operators were owner (44%), successor (44%), wife (6%) and company worker (6%), respectively. The most difficulty (31%) in using AMS was operating the system and complicated program manual. The rate of response to system error and breakdown was 25%. The reasons for culling cow after using AMS were mastitis (28%), reproduction failure (19%), incorrect teat placement (12%), metabolic disease (7%) and others (14%), respectively. Fifty-six percentages of the respondents made AMS maintenance contract and 44% did not. Average annual cost of the maintenance contract was 6,580,000 won. Average score for AMS satisfaction measurement (1 to 5 range) was 3.2 with decrease of labor cost 3.7, company A/S 3.6, increase of milk yield 3.2 and decrease of somatic cell count 2.8, respectively. Suggestions for the higher efficiency in using AMS were selecting cows with correct udder shape and teat placement, proper environment, capital and land, and attitude for continuous observation. Systematic consulting was highly required for AMS companies followed by low cost for AMS setup and systematization of A/S.

Comparison of Deep Learning Frameworks: About Theano, Tensorflow, and Cognitive Toolkit (딥러닝 프레임워크의 비교: 티아노, 텐서플로, CNTK를 중심으로)

  • Chung, Yeojin;Ahn, SungMahn;Yang, Jiheon;Lee, Jaejoon
    • Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
    • /
    • v.23 no.2
    • /
    • pp.1-17
    • /
    • 2017
  • The deep learning framework is software designed to help develop deep learning models. Some of its important functions include "automatic differentiation" and "utilization of GPU". The list of popular deep learning framework includes Caffe (BVLC) and Theano (University of Montreal). And recently, Microsoft's deep learning framework, Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit, was released as open-source license, following Google's Tensorflow a year earlier. The early deep learning frameworks have been developed mainly for research at universities. Beginning with the inception of Tensorflow, however, it seems that companies such as Microsoft and Facebook have started to join the competition of framework development. Given the trend, Google and other companies are expected to continue investing in the deep learning framework to bring forward the initiative in the artificial intelligence business. From this point of view, we think it is a good time to compare some of deep learning frameworks. So we compare three deep learning frameworks which can be used as a Python library. Those are Google's Tensorflow, Microsoft's CNTK, and Theano which is sort of a predecessor of the preceding two. The most common and important function of deep learning frameworks is the ability to perform automatic differentiation. Basically all the mathematical expressions of deep learning models can be represented as computational graphs, which consist of nodes and edges. Partial derivatives on each edge of a computational graph can then be obtained. With the partial derivatives, we can let software compute differentiation of any node with respect to any variable by utilizing chain rule of Calculus. First of all, the convenience of coding is in the order of CNTK, Tensorflow, and Theano. The criterion is simply based on the lengths of the codes and the learning curve and the ease of coding are not the main concern. According to the criteria, Theano was the most difficult to implement with, and CNTK and Tensorflow were somewhat easier. With Tensorflow, we need to define weight variables and biases explicitly. The reason that CNTK and Tensorflow are easier to implement with is that those frameworks provide us with more abstraction than Theano. We, however, need to mention that low-level coding is not always bad. It gives us flexibility of coding. With the low-level coding such as in Theano, we can implement and test any new deep learning models or any new search methods that we can think of. The assessment of the execution speed of each framework is that there is not meaningful difference. According to the experiment, execution speeds of Theano and Tensorflow are very similar, although the experiment was limited to a CNN model. In the case of CNTK, the experimental environment was not maintained as the same. The code written in CNTK has to be run in PC environment without GPU where codes execute as much as 50 times slower than with GPU. But we concluded that the difference of execution speed was within the range of variation caused by the different hardware setup. In this study, we compared three types of deep learning framework: Theano, Tensorflow, and CNTK. According to Wikipedia, there are 12 available deep learning frameworks. And 15 different attributes differentiate each framework. Some of the important attributes would include interface language (Python, C ++, Java, etc.) and the availability of libraries on various deep learning models such as CNN, RNN, DBN, and etc. And if a user implements a large scale deep learning model, it will also be important to support multiple GPU or multiple servers. Also, if you are learning the deep learning model, it would also be important if there are enough examples and references.

Accuracy Evaluation of Tumor Therapy during Respiratory Gated Radiation Therapy (호흡동조방사선 치료 시 종양 치료의 정확도 평가)

  • Jang, Eun-Sung;Kang, Soo-Man;Lee, Chol-Soo;Kang, Se-Sik
    • The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
    • /
    • v.22 no.2
    • /
    • pp.113-122
    • /
    • 2010
  • Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of a target position at static and dynamic state by using Dynamic phantom for the difference between tumor's actual movement during respiratory gated radiation therapy and skin movement measured by RPM (Real-time Position Management). Materials and Methods: It self-produced Dynamic phantom that moves two-dimensionally to measure a tumor moved by breath. After putting marker block on dynamic phantom, it analyzed the amplitude and status change depending on respiratory time setup in advance by using RPM. It places marker block on dynamic phantom based on this result, inserts Gafchromic EBT film into the target, and investigates 5 Gy respectively at static and dynamic state. And it scanned investigated Gafchromic EBT film and analyzed dose distribution by using automatic calculation. Results: As a result of an analysis of Gafchromic EBT film's radiation amount at static and dynamic state, it could be known that dose distribution involving 90% is distributed within margin of error of 3 mm. Conclusion: As a result of an analysis of dose distribution's change depending on patient's respiratory cycle during respiratory gated radiation therapy, it is expected that the treatment would be possible within recommended margin of error at ICRP 60.

  • PDF

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Exactrac in Image-guided Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer (두경부암의 영상유도방사선치료에서 ExacTrac의 유용성 평가)

  • Baek, Min Gyu;Kim, Min Woo;Ha, Se Min;Chae, Jong Pyo;Jo, Guang Sub;Lee, Sang Bong
    • The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
    • /
    • v.32
    • /
    • pp.7-15
    • /
    • 2020
  • Purpose: In modern radiotherapy technology, several methods of image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) are used to deliver accurate doses to tumor target locations and normal organs, including CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) and other devices, ExacTrac System, other than CBCT equipped with linear accelerators. In previous studies comparing the two systems, positional errors were analysed rearwards using Offline-view or evaluated only with a Yaw rotation with the X, Y, and Z axes. In this study, when using CBCT and ExacTrac to perform 6 Degree of the Freedom(DoF) Online IGRT in a treatment center with two equipment, the difference between the set-up calibration values seen in each system, the time taken for patient set-up, and the radiation usefulness of the imaging device is evaluated. Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the difference between mobile calibrations and exposure radiation dose, the glass dosimetry and Rando Phantom were used for 11 cancer patients with head circumference from March to October 2017 in order to assess the difference between mobile calibrations and the time taken from Set-up to shortly before IGRT. CBCT and ExacTrac System were used for IGRT of all patients. An average of 10 CBCT and ExacTrac images were obtained per patient during the total treatment period, and the difference in 6D Online Automation values between the two systems was calculated within the ROI setting. In this case, the area of interest designation in the image obtained from CBCT was fixed to the same anatomical structure as the image obtained through ExacTrac. The difference in positional values for the six axes (SI, AP, LR; Rotation group: Pitch, Roll, Rtn) between the two systems, the total time taken from patient set-up to just before IGRT, and exposure dose were measured and compared respectively with the RandoPhantom. Results: the set-up error in the phantom and patient was less than 1mm in the translation group and less than 1.5° in the rotation group, and the RMS values of all axes except the Rtn value were less than 1mm and 1°. The time taken to correct the set-up error in each system was an average of 256±47.6sec for IGRT using CBCT and 84±3.5sec for ExacTrac, respectively. Radiation exposure dose by IGRT per treatment was measured at 37 times higher than ExacTrac in CBCT and ExacTrac at 2.468mGy and 0.066mGy at Oral Mucosa among the 7 measurement locations in the head and neck area. Conclusion: Through 6D online automatic positioning between the CBCT and ExacTrac systems, the set-up error was found to be less than 1mm, 1.02°, including the patient's movement (random error), as well as the systematic error of the two systems. This error range is considered to be reasonable when considering that the PTV Margin is 3mm during the head and neck IMRT treatment in the present study. However, considering the changes in target and risk organs due to changes in patient weight during the treatment period, it is considered to be appropriately used in combination with CBCT.