• Journal of the Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems
• /
• v.24 no.5
• /
• pp.518-528
• /
• 2014

In this paper, we propose a method to recognize the action direction of human by developing 4D space-time (4D-ST, [x,y,z,t]) features. For this, we propose 4D space-time interest points (4D-STIPs, [x,y,z,t]) which are extracted using 3D space (3D-S, [x,y,z]) volumes reconstructed from images of a finite number of different views. Since the proposed features are constructed using volumetric information, the features for arbitrary 2D space (2D-S, [x,y]) viewpoint can be generated by projecting the 3D-S volumes and 4D-STIPs on corresponding image planes in training step. We can recognize the directions of actors in the test video since our training sets, which are projections of 3D-S volumes and 4D-STIPs to various image planes, contain the direction information. The process for recognizing action direction is divided into two steps, firstly we recognize the class of actions and then recognize the action direction using direction information. For the action and direction of action recognition, with the projected 3D-S volumes and 4D-STIPs we construct motion history images (MHIs) and non-motion history images (NMHIs) which encode the moving and non-moving parts of an action respectively. For the action recognition, features are trained by support vector data description (SVDD) according to the action class and recognized by support vector domain density description (SVDDD). For the action direction recognition after recognizing actions, each actions are trained using SVDD according to the direction class and then recognized by SVDDD. In experiments, we train the models using 3D-S volumes from INRIA Xmas Motion Acquisition Sequences (IXMAS) dataset and recognize action direction by constructing a new SNU dataset made for evaluating the action direction recognition.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.61-71
• /
• 2020

Purpose: To investigate the effect of collimator angle on plan quality of PAN-Pelvis Multi-isocenter VMAT plan, dose reproducibility at the junction and impact on set-up error at the junction. Material and method: 10 adult patients with whole pelvis cancer including PAN were selected for the study. Using Trubeam STx equipped with HD MLC, we changed the collimator angle to 20°, 30°, and 45° except 10° which was the default collimator angle in the Eclipse(version 13.7) and all other treatment conditions were set to be the same for each patient and four plans were established also. To evaluate these plans, PTV coverage, coverage index(CVI) and homogeneity index (HI) were compared and clinical indicators for each treatment sites in normal tissues were analyzed. To evaluate dose reproducibility at the junction, the absolute dose was measured using a Falmer type ionization chamber and dose changes at the junction were evaluated by moving the position of the isocenter in and out 1~3mm and setting up the virtual volume at the junction. Result: CVI mean value was PTV-45 0.985±0.004, PTV-55 0.998±0.003 at 45° and HI mean value was PTV-45 1.140±0.074, and PTV-55 1.031±0.074 at 45° which were closest to 1. V20Gy of the kidneys decreased by 9.66% and average dose of bladder and V30 decreased by 1.88% and 2.16% at 45° compared to 10° for the critical organs. The dose value at the junction of the plan and the actual measured were within 0.3% and within tolerance. At the junction, due to set-up error the maximum dose increased to 14.56%, 9.88%, 8.03%, and 7.05%, at 10°, 20°, 30°, 45°, and the minimum dose decreased to 13.18%, 10.91%, 8.42%, and 4.53%, at 10°, 20°, 30°, 45° Conclusion: In terms of CVI, HI of PTV and critical organ protection, overall improved values were shown as the collimator angle increased. The impact on set-up error at the junction by collimator angle decreased as the angle increased and it will help improve the anxiety about the set up error. In conclusion, the collimator angle should be recognized as a factor that can affect the quality of the multi-isocenter VMAT plan and the dose at the junction, and be careful in setting the collimator angle in the treatment plan.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.107-116
• /
• 2018

Purpose : Intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) has been widely used for radiation therapy of Prostate Cancer because it can reduce radiation adverse effects on normal tissues and deliver more dose to the Prostate than 3D radiation therapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) has been widely used due to recent advances in equipment and treatment techniques. VMAT can reduce treatment time by up to 55 % compared to IMRT, minimizing motion error during treatment. Materials and Methods : In this study, compared the MU and DVH values of 10 patients with prostate cancer by classifying them into 4 groups with 5 LN-Prostate groups and 5 Only-Prostate. And DQA measurements were performed using ArcCHECK and MapCHECK. Results : The results of Target and OAR dose distribution of Prostate patients are as follows. $D_{max}$ was in the range of 100~110 % in 4 groups, and more than 110 % of hot spot was not seen. Only-Prostate ($P_1$, $P_2$) without LN had a satisfactory dose distribution for the target dose, but slightly better for 2 arc plan($P_2$) than 1 arc plan($P_1$). The target dose $D_{98%}$ distribution in the LN-Prostate ($P_{L1}$, $P_{L2}$) group showed better 2 arc plan($P_{L2}$) than 1 arc plan($P_{L1}$), But in the case of 1 arc plan($P_{L1}$), the target dose $D_{98%}$ value was not enough. In OAR, the dose distribution of 1 Arc($P_1$) Plan and 2 Arc($P_2$) Plan in the Only-Prostate ($P_1$, $P_2$) Group satisfied the prescribed dose value. But, The dose distribution of 1 arc($P_1$) was slightly higher. In LN-Prostate OAR, 1 Arc($P_{L1}$) Plan showed higher dose than the prescribed dose. The Gamma evaluation pass rate of ArcCHECK and MapCHECK calculated from the DQA measurements was slightly higher than 99 % and the mean error range of the point dose measurements using the CC04 ion chamber was less than 1 %. Conclusion : In this study, Only-Prostate ($P_1$, $P_2$) group, the dose of 2 Arc plan was better. However, considering the treatment time and MU value, 1 Arc treatment method was more suitable. In the LN-Prostate ($P_{L1}$, $P_{L2}$) group, 2 Arc($P_{L2}$) treatment method showed better results and satisfied with Target $D_{98%}$ and OAR prescription dose.