http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
조채연,신동호,이건희,우상희,이석환,한방우,황정호 한국입자에어로졸학회 2023 Particle and Aerosol Research Vol.19 No.2
The charge and magnetic characteristics of LM (Low-metallic) and NAO (Non-asbestos-organic) brake wear particles were analyzed. The ratio of charged particles from total particles is about 86% of the LM pad and about 92% of the NAO pad. Number of charge per particle from the NAO pad is also higher than that of the LM pad. The ratio of magnetic particles from total particles increases with the particle size. The ratio of magnetic particles from the LM pad is about 15% for the particles with the size of 1 ㎛, and about 74% for ones with 5 ㎛. The ratio from the NAO pad is about 5% for the particles with the size from 0.5 ㎛ to 2 ㎛, and about 80% for the particles with 5 ㎛. Through the analysis of the components of the two pads with SEM-EDS (Scanning Electron Microscopy - Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy), it was found that the LM pad was occupied with more iron fraction than the NAO pad and that PM2.5-10 was occupied with more iron fraction than PM2.5. The particles smaller than 10 ㎛ (i.e. PM10) from the LM pad contained about 83% of charged particles, about 43% of magnetic particles, and about 93% of charged or magnetic particles. PM10 from the NAO pad contained about 88% of charged particles, about 15% of magnetic particles, and about 89% of charged or magnetic particles.
류채연,조나리야,김선미,장미정,박정선,백승연,문우경 대한영상의학회 2011 Korean Journal of Radiology Vol.12 No.1
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a computer-aided evaluation program (CAE) of breast MRI for the assessment of residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with breast cancers who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI before and after chemotherapy were included as part of this study. For the assessment of residual tumor extent after completion of chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameters measured by radiologists and CAE were compared to those on histopathology using a paired student t-test. Moreover, the agreement between unidimensional (1D) measurement by radiologist and histopathological size or 1D measurement by CAE and histopathological size was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. For chemotherapy monitoring, we evaluated tumor response through the change in the 1D diameter by a radiologist and CAE and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric change by CAE based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Agreement between the 1D response by the radiologist versus the 1D response by CAE as well as by the 3D response by CAE were evaluated using weighted kappa (k) statistics. Results: For the assessment of residual tumor extent after chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameter measured by radiologists (2.0 ± 1.7 cm) was significantly smaller than the mean histological diameter (2.6 ± 2.3 cm) (p = 0.01), whereas, no significant difference was found between the CAE measurements (mean = 2.2 ± 2.0 cm) and histological diameter (p = 0.19). The mean difference between the 1D measurement by the radiologist and histopathology was 0.6 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.0, 4.3), whereas the difference between CAE and histopathology was 0.4 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.9, 4.7). For the monitoring of response to chemotherapy, the 1D measurement by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair agreement (k = 0.358), while the 1D measurement by the radiologist and 3D measurement by CAE showed poor agreement (k = 0.106). Conclusion: CAE for breast MRI is sufficiently accurate for the assessment of residual tumor extent in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, for the assessment of response to chemotherapy, the assessment by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair to poor agreement. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a computer-aided evaluation program (CAE) of breast MRI for the assessment of residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with breast cancers who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI before and after chemotherapy were included as part of this study. For the assessment of residual tumor extent after completion of chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameters measured by radiologists and CAE were compared to those on histopathology using a paired student t-test. Moreover, the agreement between unidimensional (1D) measurement by radiologist and histopathological size or 1D measurement by CAE and histopathological size was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. For chemotherapy monitoring, we evaluated tumor response through the change in the 1D diameter by a radiologist and CAE and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric change by CAE based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Agreement between the 1D response by the radiologist versus the 1D response by CAE as well as by the 3D response by CAE were evaluated using weighted kappa (k) statistics. Results: For the assessment of residual tumor extent after chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameter measured by radiologists (2.0 ± 1.7 cm) was significantly smaller than the mean histological diameter (2.6 ± 2.3 cm) (p = 0.01), whereas, no significant difference was found between the CAE measurements (mean = 2.2 ± 2.0 cm) and histological diameter (p = 0.19). The mean difference between the 1D measurement by the radiologist and histopathology was 0.6 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.0, 4.3), whereas the difference between CAE and histopathology was 0.4 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.9, 4.7). For the monitoring of response to chemotherapy, the 1D measurement by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair agreement (k = 0.358), while the 1D measurement by the radiologist and 3D measurement by CAE showed poor agreement (k = 0.106). Conclusion: CAE for breast MRI is sufficiently accurate for the assessment of residual tumor extent in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, for the assessment of response to chemotherapy, the assessment by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair to poor agreement.