http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Jaeha Lee,Yeon Joo Kim,Youngmoon Goh,Eunyeong Yang,Ha Un Kim,Si Yeol Song,Young Seok Kim 대한방사선종양학회 2023 Radiation Oncology Journal Vol.41 No.3
Purpose: Surface-guided radiation therapy is an image-guided method using optical surface imaging that has recently been adopted for patient setup and motion monitoring during treatment. We aimed to determine whether the surface guide setup is accurate and efficient compared to the skin-marking guide in prostate cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: The skin-marking setup was performed, and vertical, longitudinal, and lateral couch values (labeled as “M”) were recorded. Subsequently, the surface-guided setup was conducted, and couch values (labeled as “S”) were recorded. After performing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the final couch values was recorded (labeled as “C”), and the shift value was calculated (labeled as “Gap (M-S),” “Gap (M-C),” “Gap (S-C)”) and then compared. Additionally, the setup times for the skin marking and surface guides were also compared. Results: One hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed, totaling 2,735 treatment fractions. Gap (M-S) showed minimal differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral averages (-0.03 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.06 cm, respectively). Gap (M-C) and Gap (S-C) exhibited a mean difference of 0.04 cm (p = 0.03) in the vertical direction, a mean difference of 0.35 cm (p = 0.52) in the longitudinal direction, and a mean difference of 0.11 cm (p = 0.91) in the lateral direction. There was no correlation between shift values and patient characteristics. The average setup time of the skin-marking guide was 6.72 minutes, and 7.53 minutes for the surface guide. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the surface and skin-marking guides regarding final CBCT shift values and no correlation between translational shift values and patient characteristics. We also observed minimal difference in setup time between the two methods. Therefore, the surface guide can be considered an accurate and time-efficient alternative to skin-marking guides.
Eunyeong Yang,Young Seob Shin,Ji Hyeon Joo,Wonsik Choi,Su Ssan Kim,Eun Kyung Choi,Jaeha Lee,Si Yeol Song 대한방사선종양학회 2023 Radiation Oncology Journal Vol.41 No.3
Purpose: An optimal once-daily radiotherapy (RT) regimen is under investigation for definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). We compared the efficacy and safety of dose escalation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Between January 2016 and March 2021, patients treated with definitive CCRT for LD-SCLC with IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received a total dose <50 Gy or those with a history of thoracic RT or surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups (standard and dose-escalated) based on the total biologically effective dose (BED, α/β = 10) of 70 Gy. The chemotherapeutic regimen comprised four cycles of etoposide and cisplatin. Results: One hundred and twenty-two patients were analyzed and the median follow-up was 27.8 months (range, 4.4 to 76.9 months). The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 35 to 78 years) and the majority had a history of smoking (86.0%). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates of the escalated dose group were significantly higher than those of the standard group (93.5% and 50.5% vs. 76.7% and 33.3%, respectively; p = 0.008), as were the 1- and 3-year freedom from in-field failure rates (91.4% and 66.5% vs. 73.8% and 46.9%, respectively; p = 0.018). The incidence of grade 2 or higher acute and late pneumonitis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.062, 0.185). Conclusion: Dose-escalated once-daily CCRT with IMRT led to improved locoregional control and survival, with no increase in toxicity.
Kim, Jaeha,Yang, Joonseok,Lee, Sanggu Institution of Electrical Engineers 2014 Electronics letters Vol.50 No.8
The optimal capacitive load condition is derived for a passive bridge rectifier to harvest the maximum amount of energy when a piezoelectric generator (PG) receives a single vibration pulse (e. g. a button press). When the PG is modelled as a current pulse generator with an internal shunt capacitance (CP), it is shown that an ideal bridge rectifier collects the maximum energy when its output capacitance is set to 3.C-P. The impacts of the nonzero turn-on voltage and on-resistance of the diodes are also discussed. The experimental results with a 300 mm(2) lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate PG and a Schottky-bridge rectifier with 0.22 V turn-on voltage demonstrate that the maximum energy transfer occurs at a capacitance ratio of 3.3, collecting 117 mu J from a single button press.
양주영(Juyeong Yang),유재하(Jaeha Yoo),김동연(Dongyon Kim),박준모(Junmo Park),김수찬(Soochan Kim) 대한전자공학회 2014 전자공학회논문지 Vol.51 No.7
병원이나 검사실 등에 널리 이용되는 평형 기능 검사법은 고감도 압력센서를 이용한 균형감각조절임상검사(CTSIB, clinical test of sensory integration on balance)이다. 바로 선 자세에서 발바닥의 압력중심(center of pressure)의 변화를 관찰함으로써 흉부 흔들림을 객관적으로 측정한다. 본 논문에서는 가정에서도 손쉽게 흉부의 흔들림을 측정할 수 있는 방법을 제안하고자 한다. 위 밸런스보드(Wii balance board, WBB)는 게임기임에도 불구하고 흉부 흔들림과 상관관계가 높은 압력중심을 측정할 수 있기 때문에 기존의 임상용 제품과 유사한 결과를 보인다. 하지만 위 리모트 컨트롤러(Wii remote controller, WRC)는 WBB보다 저렴하고 손쉽게 구할 수 있음에도 불구하고 흉부 흔들림 분석에서는 압력 측정방식이 아니기 때문에 기대만큼 활용되지 못하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 정상인 10명(남자:5명, 여자:5명)을 대상으로 WRC의 가속도 정보로부터 convex hull 혹은 ellipse area분석법을 이용하여 WBB와 유사한 결과를 보였다. The CTSIB(Clinical Test of Sensory Integration on Balance) using high sensitive pressure sensors is normally used to assess the sense of balance in hospital. It takes an objective measurement of the amount of sway that occurs in the body trunk by observing the change in the center of pressure (CoP) on the foot at the upright posture. In this paper, we would like to propose method to easily measure trunk sway in home. Although the Wii balance board(WBB) is used for games, it can measures the center of pressure, which is highly correlated. The Wii remote controller(WRC) is inexpensive compared to the WBB, but it has problems with estimation of trunk sway because in can’t measure pressure directly like WBB. We collected data from 10 normal subjects (5 males, 5 females) from two devices in order to compare the CoP from WBB and the center of mass (CoM) from WRC. The results of WRC and WBB was similar when the data were analyzed by the convex hull and ellipse area.