• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.17-23
• /
• 2008

Purpose : Because there is a difference depending on the environment as for an inspection equipment the important part of bone density scan and the precision/accuracy of a tester, the management of quality must be made systematically. The equipment failure caused by overload effect due to the aged equipment and the increase of a patient was made frequently. Thus, the replacement of equipment and additional purchases of new bonedensity equipment caused a compatibility problem in tracking patients. This study wants to know whether the clinical changes of patient's bonedensity can be accurately and precisely reflected when used it compatiblly like the existing equipment after equipment replacement and expansion. Materials and methods : Two equipments of GE Lunar Prodigy Advance(P1 and P2) and the Phantom HOLOGIC Spine Road(HSP) were used to measure equipment precision. Each device scans 20 times so that precision data was acquired from the phantom(Group 1). The precision of a tester was measured by shooting twice the same patient, every 15 members from each of the target equipment in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 2). In addition, the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data were made by scanning 20 times in each of the equipment using HSP, based on the data obtained from the management of quality using phantom(ASP) every morning (Group 3). The same patient was shot only once in one equipment alternately to make the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 4). Results : It is steady equipment according to daily Q.C Data with $0.996\;g/cm^2$, change value(%CV) 0.08. The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are ALP in Group 1(P1 : $1.064{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.190\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.061{\pm}0.003\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.192). The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are P1 : $1.187{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.164\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.198{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.163 in Group 2. The average error${\pm}$2SD and %CV are P1 - (spine: $0.001{\pm}0.03\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.94, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.019\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.96), P2 - (spine: $0.002{\pm}0.018\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.55, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.013\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.48) in Group 3. The average error${\pm}2SD$, %CV, and r value was spine : $0.006{\pm}0.024\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.86, r=0.995, Femur: $0{\pm}0.014\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.54, r=0.998 in Group 4. Conclusion: Both LUNAR ASP CV% and HOLOGIC Spine Phantom are included in the normal range of error of ${\pm}2%$ defined in ISCD. BMD measurement keeps a relatively constant value, so showing excellent repeatability. The Phantom has homogeneous characteristics, but it has limitations to reflect the clinical part including variations in patient's body weight or body fat. As a result, it is believed that quality control using Phantom will be useful to check mis-calibration of the equipment used. A value measured a patient two times with one equipment, and that of double-crossed two equipment are all included within 2SD Value in the Bland - Altman Graph compared results of Group 3 with Group 4. The r value of 0.99 or higher in Linear regression analysis(Regression Analysis) indicated high precision and correlation. Therefore, it revealed that two compatible equipment did not affect in tracking the patients. Regular testing equipment and capabilities of a tester, then appropriate calibration will have to be achieved in order to calculate confidential BMD.

• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.107-122
• /
• 2017

Volatility in the stock market returns is a measure of investment risk. It plays a central role in portfolio optimization, asset pricing and risk management as well as most theoretical financial models. Engle(1982) presented a pioneering paper on the stock market volatility that explains the time-variant characteristics embedded in the stock market return volatility. His model, Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (ARCH), was generalized by Bollerslev(1986) as GARCH models. Empirical studies have shown that GARCH models describes well the fat-tailed return distributions and volatility clustering phenomenon appearing in stock prices. The parameters of the GARCH models are generally estimated by the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) based on the standard normal density. But, since 1987 Black Monday, the stock market prices have become very complex and shown a lot of noisy terms. Recent studies start to apply artificial intelligent approach in estimating the GARCH parameters as a substitute for the MLE. The paper presents SVR-based GARCH process and compares with MLE-based GARCH process to estimate the parameters of GARCH models which are known to well forecast stock market volatility. Kernel functions used in SVR estimation process are linear, polynomial and radial. We analyzed the suggested models with KOSPI 200 Index. This index is constituted by 200 blue chip stocks listed in the Korea Exchange. We sampled KOSPI 200 daily closing values from 2010 to 2015. Sample observations are 1487 days. We used 1187 days to train the suggested GARCH models and the remaining 300 days were used as testing data. First, symmetric and asymmetric GARCH models are estimated by MLE. We forecasted KOSPI 200 Index return volatility and the statistical metric MSE shows better results for the asymmetric GARCH models such as E-GARCH or GJR-GARCH. This is consistent with the documented non-normal return distribution characteristics with fat-tail and leptokurtosis. Compared with MLE estimation process, SVR-based GARCH models outperform the MLE methodology in KOSPI 200 Index return volatility forecasting. Polynomial kernel function shows exceptionally lower forecasting accuracy. We suggested Intelligent Volatility Trading System (IVTS) that utilizes the forecasted volatility results. IVTS entry rules are as follows. If forecasted tomorrow volatility will increase then buy volatility today. If forecasted tomorrow volatility will decrease then sell volatility today. If forecasted volatility direction does not change we hold the existing buy or sell positions. IVTS is assumed to buy and sell historical volatility values. This is somewhat unreal because we cannot trade historical volatility values themselves. But our simulation results are meaningful since the Korea Exchange introduced volatility futures contract that traders can trade since November 2014. The trading systems with SVR-based GARCH models show higher returns than MLE-based GARCH in the testing period. And trading profitable percentages of MLE-based GARCH IVTS models range from 47.5% to 50.0%, trading profitable percentages of SVR-based GARCH IVTS models range from 51.8% to 59.7%. MLE-based symmetric S-GARCH shows +150.2% return and SVR-based symmetric S-GARCH shows +526.4% return. MLE-based asymmetric E-GARCH shows -72% return and SVR-based asymmetric E-GARCH shows +245.6% return. MLE-based asymmetric GJR-GARCH shows -98.7% return and SVR-based asymmetric GJR-GARCH shows +126.3% return. Linear kernel function shows higher trading returns than radial kernel function. Best performance of SVR-based IVTS is +526.4% and that of MLE-based IVTS is +150.2%. SVR-based GARCH IVTS shows higher trading frequency. This study has some limitations. Our models are solely based on SVR. Other artificial intelligence models are needed to search for better performance. We do not consider costs incurred in the trading process including brokerage commissions and slippage costs. IVTS trading performance is unreal since we use historical volatility values as trading objects. The exact forecasting of stock market volatility is essential in the real trading as well as asset pricing models. Further studies on other machine learning-based GARCH models can give better information for the stock market investors.