Improved Automatic Registration Adjustment of Multi-source Remote Sensing Datasets

Background and purposeThe study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators.MethodsA total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed.ResultsThe average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles.ConclusionsCompared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.

BackgroundThe multileaf collimator (MLC) is a critical component to accurate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery. This study examined MLC positional accuracy via MLC logs from Varian machines from six institutions and three delivery techniques to evaluate typical positional accuracy and treatment and mechanical parameters that affect accuracy. Typical accuracy achieved was compared against TG-142 recommendations for MLC performance; more appropriate recommendations are suggested.MethodsOver 85,000 Varian MLC treatment logs were collected from six institutions and analyzed with FractionCHECK. Data were binned according to institution and treatment type to determine overall root mean square (RMS) and 95th percentile error values, and then to look for correlations between those errors and with mechanical and treatment parameters including mean and maximum leaf speed, gantry angle, beam-on time, mean leaf error, and number of segments.ResultsResults of treatment logs found that leaf RMS error and 95th percentile leaf error were consistent between institutions, but varied by treatment type. The step and shoot technique had very small errors: the mean RMS leaf error was 0.008 mm. For dynamic treatments the mean RMS leaf error was 0.32 mm, while volumetric-modulated arc treatment (VMAT) showed an RMS leaf error of 0.46 mm. Most MLC leaf errors were found to be well below TG-142 recommended tolerances. For the dynamic and VMAT techniques, the mean and maximum leaf speeds were significantly linked to the leaf RMS error. Additionally, for dynamic delivery, the mean leaf error was correlated with RMS error, whereas for VMAT the average gantry speed was correlated. For all treatments, the RMS error and the 95th percentile leaf error were correlated.ConclusionsRestricting the maximum leaf speed can help improve MLC performance for dynamic and VMAT deliveries. Furthermore, the tolerances of leaf RMS and error counts for all treatment types should be tightened from the TG-142 values to make them more appropriate for clinical performance. Values of 1 mm for the 95th percentile of leaf RMS error and 1.5 mm for the 95th percentile leaf error are suggested as action levels for all treatment types.

Among the Earth Observation (EO) instruments used in environmental and agricultural applications, the SPOT4-VEGETATION (SPOT4-VGT) instrument allows daily monitoring of terrestrial vegetation cover through remote sensing, at regional and global levels. The characterization of the geometric and radiometric performances of remote sensing data and their temporal stability play an important role in the analysis of EO images and are essential in environmental and agricultural monitoring applications. The validation and characterization of the SPOT4-VGT image geometric performances and temporal stability are investigated in this letter. Three time series of data acquired during 1999, 2000 and 2001 were used for this purpose. These images were downlinked by several VGT L-band receiving stations and processed by the SPACE-VGT software. From analyses made, it can be concluded that the geometric characteristics of the VGT L-band images agree with the VGT International User Committee requirements: the multispectral registration has a root mean square (RMS) error in the range of 0.25±0.17 pixels for B2, B3 and MIR bands, and 0.48±0.21 pixels for B0 band; the multi-temporal registration has a RMS error in the range of 0.38±0.23 pixels; and the absolute geo-location has a RMS error in the range of ±660 m.

The aim of the present research is to calculate the Relative Accuracy (R.A) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) for the location of Technical Institute, Mosul in Nineveh Governorate, Iraq. at the northern part of Mosul city by using surveying Instruments (GPS 1230 , Total Station 06 & Level NAK2), to calculate the coordinates and elevations of (16) Ground Control Points which covered the study area. The field data, remote sensing techniques and GIS software (Arc Map GIS10.3) are used to check the digital map of study area that helped the administrator to take the correct decision, determining positions of the future expansionist for buildings, roads, measuring lengths, areas and there coordinates, directions as well as the total costs estimation needed for any development from the final map. The gradient percentage between the highest and lowest points is calculated to be (9.954%). Relative accuracy for the based measured points (R.A) = 1:60000), and Root Mean Square error in Easting coordinates (RMSE) = ± 0.102m, in Northing coordinates (RMSN) = ± 0.096m, the Root Mean Square for the resultant (RMSR) = ± 0.099m, and Root Mean Square for Elevations ( RMSRL)= ± 0.005m. We Matched and correlated (10) measured points from study area with their graphic data positions on the aerial photo, determining the offsets for position and elevations as follows: (RMSE = ± 0.076m), (RMSN = ± 0.125m), (RMSR = ± 0.088m), and (Root Mean Square for Elevations = RMSRL= ± 0.045m). This research enable us after checking the results to produce new maps from Aerial photograph or Digital Image to use it for land uses and future extensions in whole study area.

OPINION article Front. Physiol., 22 January 2014Sec. Integrative Physiology Volume 4 - 2013 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00403

This paper studies data manipulation using analytical relative orientation process to determine the exterior orientation parameters. This process can be accomplished by two scenarios; the first one is implemented using collinearity condition while the second one is implemented using coplanarity condition. The final results of both scenarios will be a three dimensional (3D) model and in order to specify the more precise scenario in reconstruction of (3D) models Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) for each scenario was computed. Absolute orientation process was used to transform coordinates of the model system into coordinates of the ground system then (RMSE) for each was computed. The difficulty of obtaining Ground Control Points (GCPs) that covers the photogrammetric project had been overcome by establishing a Portable Control System (PCS) .This (PCS) is a block made of an Aluminum alloy that had been shaped by a (TNC) milling machine to produce plane surfaces on it. The points of intersection of the produced surfaces on the block was labeled or coded and the distances between these points were measured manually by the digital vernier caliper 150mm and micrometer. These points represented control points in the captured images also a specific point within the block was chosen to be the center of this control system and all the remaining points was calculated with reference to it. The calculated (RMSE) for collinearity condition was 1.0212 mm. while for coplanarity condition was 1.0230 mm. So the precision of both models is nearly identical moreover coplanarity condition was more feasible for the requirements of close range photogrammetry.

HighlightsWhat are the main findings?A Multi-Stage Feature Selection (MSFS) framework integrating Pearson correlation, mutual information, and Boruta was developed to optimize high-dimensional airborne LiDAR point cloud features for individual-tree DBH estimation.The proposed MSFS–XGBoost model significantly improved prediction accuracy, achieving an of 0.901 and an RMSE of 1.647 cm, outperforming DTR, RFR, and GBM models.What are the implications of the main findings?The proposed feature optimization strategy effectively reduces redundancy in LiDAR-derived features and enhances model stability for forest structural parameter estimation.The MSFS–XGBoost framework provides a reliable approach for accurate individual-tree DBH estimation and supports refined forest resource monitoring using airborne LiDAR data.Diameter at breast height (DBH) is a fundamental structural parameter for forest inventory and ecological analysis. However, field-based measurements (e.g., diameter tape surveys) are labor-intensive and inefficient for large-scale applications. Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) provides an efficient alternative for individual-tree DBH estimation. Nevertheless, LiDAR-derived features—defined as statistical descriptors of point cloud structure and radiometric properties—are typically high-dimensional and redundant, which may degrade model performance. To address this issue, this study proposes an integrated framework combining Multi-Stage Feature Selection (MSFS) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) for DBH estimation. A total of 104 variables, including LiDAR-derived features (height, density, intensity, and canopy structure metrics) and structural parameters (tree height, crown diameter, and crown area), were used as predictors. The MSFS framework was applied to progressively reduce feature redundancy and identify an optimal subset, which was then used to train the XGBoost model. The results demonstrate that the MSFS–XGBoost model achieved the best performance, with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.901 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 1.647 cm. Compared with models using the original feature set, R2 increased by 0.384 and RMSE decreased by 1.146 cm. These findings indicate that the proposed framework effectively improves DBH estimation accuracy and provides a reliable approach for individual-tree parameter estimation and large-scale forest resource monitoring using airborne LiDAR data.

Evaluation of Control Points’ Distribution on Distortions and Geometric Transformations for Aerial Images Rectification

Enhancing Large-Area DEM modeling of GF-7 stereo imagery: Integrating ICESat-2 data with Multi-characteristic constraint filtering and terrain matching correction

Image registration by local approximation methods

Full text Figures and data Side by side Abstract Editor's evaluation Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract Background: Oxygen uptake (VO2) is one of the most important measures of fitness and critical vital sign. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a valuable method of assessing fitness in sport and clinical settings. There is a lack of large studies on athletic populations to predict VO2max using somatic or submaximal CPET variables. Thus, this study aimed to: (1) derive prediction models for maximal VO2 (VO2max) based on submaximal exercise variables at anaerobic threshold (AT) or respiratory compensation point (RCP) or only somatic and (2) internally validate provided equations. Methods: Four thousand four hundred twenty-four male endurance athletes (EA) underwent maximal symptom-limited CPET on a treadmill (n=3330) or cycle ergometer (n=1094). The cohort was randomly divided between: variables selection (nrunners = 1998; ncyclist = 656), model building (nrunners = 666; ncyclist = 219), and validation (nrunners = 666; ncyclist = 219). Random forest was used to select the most significant variables. Models were derived and internally validated with multiple linear regression. Results: Runners were 36.24±8.45 years; BMI = 23.94 ± 2.43 kg·m−2; VO2max=53.81±6.67 mL·min−1·kg−1. Cyclists were 37.33±9.13 years; BMI = 24.34 ± 2.63 kg·m−2; VO2max=51.74±7.99 mL·min−1·kg−1. VO2 at AT and RCP were the most contributing variables to exercise equations. Body mass and body fat had the highest impact on the somatic equation. Model performance for VO2max based on variables at AT was R2=0.81, at RCP was R2=0.91, at AT and RCP was R2=0.91 and for somatic-only was R2=0.43. Conclusions: Derived prediction models were highly accurate and fairly replicable. Formulae allow for precise estimation of VO2max based on submaximal exercise performance or somatic variables. Presented models are applicable for sport and clinical settling. They are a valuable supplementary method for fitness practitioners to adjust individualised training recommendations. Funding: No external funding was received for this work. Editor's evaluation The authors have established new formulas to predict maximum oxygen uptake for cyclists and runners based on submaximal exercise testing and anthropometric characteristics. This is an important study with a large and comprehensive dataset, which may be helpful for many exercise labs. The work is convincing, using appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art, as shown by references to common exercise books. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86291.sa0 Decision letter Reviews on Sciety eLife's review process Introduction The oxygen uptake (VO2) is considered an important metric in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness, health status, or endurance performance potential (Guazzi et al., 2012). With the application of standardised procedures and interpretation protocols, during graded exercise tests (GXT), the (maximal oxygen uptake) VO2max can be established (Bentley et al., 2007). GXT is the most widely used assessment to examine the dynamic relationship between exercise and integrated physiological systems (Albouaini et al., 2007; Bentley et al., 2007). The information from GXT during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) can be applied across the spectrum of sport performance, occupational safety screening, research, and clinical diagnostics (Guazzi et al., 2017). VO2 max is often used as a boundary between severe and extreme intensity domains and by definition requires maximal effort from the tested subject (Gaesser and Poole, 1996). However, it is not always recommended or possible to undertake a test to exhaustion (Guazzi et al., 2012). For the athletes, the proximity of competition or injury history can allow submaximal testing, but not testing to exhaustion (Sassi et al., 2006). Testing that requires maximal effort may be disruptive to the training process or interfere with race performance (Coutts et al., 2007; Lamberts et al., 2011). Due to practical constraints, tests to exhaustion or peak-power-output tests are often performed only two or three times a year (Coutts et al., 2007). However, VO2 values are widely used in sport science and the decision-making process (Mann et al., 2013). VO2 is widely considered one of the major endurance performance determinants (Joyner and Coyle, 2008). Using VO2max to guide the selection process, prescribing training intensity, assessing training adaptations, or predicting race times is a common practice in high-performance sports (Bassett and Howley, 2000; Bentley et al., 2007; Hawley and Noakes, 1992; Noakes et al., 1990). VO2max is also one of the critical vital signs coordinating the function of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and muscular systems, it is an indicator of overall body health status (Kaminsky et al., 2017). Quantifying VO2max provides additional input regarding clinical decision-making, risk stratification, evaluation of therapy, and physical activity guidelines (Guazzi et al., 2012). For patients undertaking a test to exhaustion is rarely needed or possible due to health restraints or cardiac risk (Guazzi et al., 2016). For many years researchers have studied indirect methods of estimating VO2max(Sartor et al., 2013). Protocols such as the Astrand-Ryhming Test, Six-Minute Walk Test, or YMCA Step Test have been established and validated (Astrand and Ryhming, 1954; Beutner et al., 2015; Carey, 2022; Jalili et al., 2018). Moreover, estimation of the VO2 and heart rate (HR) values below the ventilatory threshold can be based on cardiorespiratory kinetics assessment using randomised changes in the work rate known as a pseudo-random binary sequences testing (Hoffmann et al., 2022). However, with the development of technology, the accessibility of laboratory testing and mobile testing improved (Montoye et al., 2020; Pritchard et al., 2021). Therefore, new opportunities to develop more precise yet simple and accessible methods and models to assess VO2max occur (Jurov et al., 2023). This appears to be especially important considering the low prediction accuracy of most of the VO2max formulae that were validated in our previous study (Wiecha et al., 2023). Recently, we have been observing the development of prediction methods with the usage of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) (Ashfaq et al., 2022). Both ML and AI are used in sport science as forecasting and decision-making support tools (Abut and Akay, 2015; Bobowik and Wiszomirska, 2022; Chmait and Westerbeek, 2021; Hammes et al., 2022; Rossi et al., 2021). There is growing evidence that VO2max prediction based on ML models, especially support vector ML and artificial neural network models, exhibits more robust and accurate results compared to MLR only (Abut and Akay, 2015; Ashfaq et al., 2022). Therefore, in this research, with the support of ML, we look for algorithms and prediction patterns that allow us to use values obtained during submaximal CPET and somatic measurements to estimate maximal VO2max values in male runners and cyclists. We stipulate that prediction models allow for accurate calculation of VO2max based on somatic or submaximal CPET variables. Materials and methods We have applied the development and validation of the prediction TRIPOD guidelines to conduct the study (see Supplementary Material 1TRIPOD Checklist for Prediction Model Development and Validation) (Collins et al., 2015). The study is based on retrospective data analysis from the CPET registry collected from 2013 to 2021 at the medical clinic (Sportslab, Warsaw, Poland). All CPET have been performed at the individual request of participants, as a part of regular training monitoring or performance assessment. Ethical approval Request a detailed protocol The Institutional Review Board of the Bioethical Committee at the Medical University of Warsaw (AKBE/32/2021) has approved the study protocol. The regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki were met during all parts of the study. Each study participant delivered written consent to undergo CPET and participate in the study. Derivation cohort Request a detailed protocol We selected the cohort with the use of rigorous exclusion/inclusion criteria. Due to the insufficient number of women in our database and the number of potential variables in the regression models for adequate power, we had to limit ourselves to conduct analysis in the male population only (Martens and Logan, 2021). Out of 6439 healthy, adult male cyclists and long-distance runners that undergone CPET, 4423 met the criteria as further: (1) age ≥18 years, (2) declared regular cycling or running training for ≥3 months, (3) had no extreme outliers ≤ or ≥±3 standard deviations (SD) from mean for all of the testing variables (beyond ≥±3 SD in VO2max), (4) lack of any injury, medical condition, or addiction in medical history that may affect exercise capacity, (5) not taking any medications with a modifying effect on exercise capacity, (6) maximum exertion achieved during CPET. We defined the maximum exertion in CPET as the fulfilment of the minimum six of the following criteria: (1) respiratory exchange ratio (RER) ≥1.10, (2) present VO2 plateau (growth <100 mL·min–1 in VO2 despite increased running speed or cycling power), (3) respiratory frequency (fR) ≥45 breaths·min–1, (4) declared subjective exertion intensity during CPET ≥18 in the Borg scale (Borg, 1970), (5) blood lactate concentration [La-]b ≥8 mmol·L–1, (6) growth in speed/power ≥10% of respiratory compensation point (RCP) values after exceeding the RCP, (7) peak heart rate (HRpeak) ≥15 beats·min–1 below predicted maximal heart rate (HRmax) (Lach et al., 2021). Participants’ selection procedure has been shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Download asset Open asset Flowchart of the preliminary inclusion and exclusion process. Abbreviations: EA, endurance athlete; CPET, cardiopulmonary exercise testing; SD, standard deviation; TE, treadmill; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; VO2, oxygen uptake (mL·min−1·kg−1); [La−]b, lactate concentration (mmol·L−1); fR, breathing frequency (breaths·min−1); RCP, respiratory compensation point; HRpeak, peak heart rate (beats·min−1); HRmax, maximal heart rate (bpm). At both stages of the selection, some participants met several (>1) exclusion criteria. Somatic measurements and CPET protocols Request a detailed protocol Body mass was measured with a body composition (BC) analyser (Tanita, MC 718, Japan) with the multifrequency of 5 kHz/50 kHz/250 kHz via the bioimpedance analysis and normal testing mode. The participants’ skin was cleaned with alcohol before placing the electrodes on the skin. Prior to the test, the participants received instructions to refrain from exercising for 2 hr, consume a light meal rich in carbohydrates 2–3 hr beforehand, and maintain hydration by drinking isotonic beverages. Additionally, they were advised to abstain from medications, caffeine, and cigarettes on the day of the test. Running CPET (TE) was performed on a mechanical treadmill (h/p/Cosmos Quasar, Germany). Cycling CPET (CE) was performed on Cyclus-2 (RBM elektronik-automation GmbH, Leipzig, Germany). Hans Rudolph V2 mask (Hans Rudolph, Inc, Shawnee, KS, USA), breath-by-breath method with Cosmed Quark CPET gas exchange analysing device (Cosmed Srl, Rome, Italy), and Quark PFT Suite to Omnia 1.6 software were utilised. The gas analyser device was regularly calibrated with the reference gas (16% O2; 5% CO2) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Airgas USA, LLC, Plumsteadville, PA, USA). From 2013 to 2021, three Cosmed Quark CPET units were used. HR was measured with the Cosmed torso belt (Cosmed srl, Rome, Italy). [La-]b was measured via enzymatic-amperometric electrochemical technique with Super GL2 analyser (Müller Gerätebau GmbH, Freital, Germany). The [La-]b analyser was regularly calibrated before each measurement series. The 40 m2 indoor, air-conditioned laboratory with 20–22°C temperature and 40–60% humidity, and 100 m ASL provided the same conditions for all BC and CPET. Each CPET began with a 5 min personalised warm-up (walk or easy jog with ‘conversational’ intensity for running, easy pedalling with ‘conversational’ intensity for cycling). Then after the preparation (about 5 min), the continuous progressive step test was conducted. Due to the population diversity (training status), the running test speed started from 7 to 12 km·hr–1 with a 1% treadmill incline. The choice of initial starting speed was determined by the interview and sports results achieved. For example, those running less than 60 min at a distance of 10 km started the test at 7 km/hr, while those running 10 km for less than 35 min started the test at an initial speed of 12 km/hr. The pace increased by 1 km·hr–1 every 2 min with no change in incline. The cycling test began at 60–150 W, depending on the athletes training status. The power increased by 20–30 W every 2 min. It was recommended to maintain a constant cadence of 80–90 (repetition·min–1) during the test. The tests were terminated due to exhaustion: volitional inability to continue the activity or/and VO2 and HR plateau with increasing load or/and observed disturbance of coordination in running or/and inability to maintain the set cadence. Due to the graded protocol used, the cycling power and running speed values have been calculated as a function of time to better reflect the actual level for the test moment being determined (Kuipers et al., 1985). Before the test, after every step, and 3 min after the termination of the effort technician took a 20 µL blood sample from a fingertip. Samples were collected during the test without interrupting the effort. The samples were taken from the initial puncture. The first blood drop was collected into the swab and the second blood drop was drawn for further analysis into the capillary. VO2max was recorded as the highest value (15 s intervals) before the termination of the test. HRmax was recorded as the highest value obtained at the end of the test, without averaging. The anaerobic threshold (AT) was established with the following criteria: (1) common start of VE/VO2 and VE/VCO2 curves, (2) end-tidal partial pressure of oxygen raised constantly with the end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Beaver et al., 1986). The was established with the following criteria: (1) PetCO2 must decrease after reaching maximal amount, (2) the presence of fast nonlinear growth in VE (second deflection), (3) the VE/VCO2 ratio achieved minimum and started to rise, and (4) a nonlinear increase in VCO2 versus VO2 (lack of linearity) (Beaver et al., 1986). The [La-]b was estimated for AT and RCP in relation to power or speed (Wiecha et al., 2022). Data analysis Request a detailed protocol Our comprehensive ML approach enables the evaluation of each formula by preliminary variables precision (at the stage of selection), then accuracy (during the model’s building) and recall (in internal validation). Individual CPET results were saved into the Excel file (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and a custom-made script was used to generate the database in Excel (Python programming). Further, mean, SD, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The normality of the distribution of the data was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test and intergroup differences were calculated using the Student’s t-test for independent variables. Three-step variable selection procedures based on random forests were applied using the R package VSURF in RStudio software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version 3.6.4) (Genuer et al., 2016). For each level of measurement (AT, RCP) and their combination (AT+RCP), significant variables were identified separately. The first step was dedicated to eliminate irrelevant variables from the dataset. Second step aimed to select all variables related to the response for interpretation purposes. The third step refined the selection by eliminating redundancy in the set of variables selected by the second step, for prediction purposes (Genuer et al., 2017). Each time for variables selection, the anthropometric variables as in Tables 1–2 and the CPET parameters given in Tables 3–4 from a specific level of measurement (AT; RCP) and their combinations were visible. Table 1 Basic anthropometric characteristics for runners. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=1998Testing group n=666Validation group n=666MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDAge (years)36.235.6–36.98.4535.935.5–36.38.0535.534.9–36.28.14Height (cm)180.0179.6–180.56.04179.4179.1–179.76.13179.7179.2–180.26.61BM (kg)77.777.0–78.49.3577.777.3–78.19.2977.977.1–78.610.1BMI (kg·m–2)23.923.8–24.12.4324.124.0–24.22.4124.123.9–24.32.56BF (%)15.415.1–15.74.5515.515.3–15.74.5215.415.1–15.84.55FM (kg)12.211.9–12.64.6812.312.1–12.54.6512.311.9–12.74.92FFM (kg)65.565.0–66.06.4365.465.1–65.76.3165.665.1–66.16.86 BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation. Table 2 Basic anthropometric characteristics for cyclists. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=656Testing group n=219Validation group n=219MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDAge (years)37.336.6–38.09.1337.135.9–38.49.5037.636.5–38.88.46Height (cm)179.9179.4–180.46.27180.1179.2–181.06.96180.2179.4–181.06.13BM (kg)78.878.1–79.69.8079.177.7–80.510.479.878.4–81.310.9BMI (kg·m–2)24.324.1–24.62.6324.424.0–24.72.8024.624.2–25.02.96BF (%)16.415.7–17.14.9916.115.7–16.54.8116.215.5–16.84.87FM (kg)13.312.6–14.15.6613.012.6–13.45.2713.312.5–14.05.85FFM (kg)65.864.9–66.66.2565.865.4–66.36.0666.665.7–67.46.58 BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation. Table 3 Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) characteristics for runners. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=1998Testing group n=666Validation group n=666MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDrVO2AT (mL·min–1·kg–1)38.438.1–38.85.0138.538.3–38.74.8838.137.7–38.55.16RERAT0.870.86–0.870.040.870.86–0.870.040.870.86–0.870.04HRAT (beats·min–1)151.5150.8–152.310.3151.0150.6–151.510.8152.0151.2–152.810.8VEAT (L·min–1)79.178.1–80.012.278.377.8–78.912.077.276.3–78.212.0SPEEDAT (km·h–1)11.010.9–11.11.4511.011.0–11.11.3610.910.8–11.01.42LAAT (mmol·L–1)2.082.02–2.140.631.801.76–1.830.622.352.27–2.420.72rVO2RCP (mL·min–1·kg–1)47.547.0–48.05.8847.747.4–48.06.1547.346.8–47.86.16RERRCP1.001.00–1.000.041.001.00–1.000.041.001.00–1.000.03HRRCP (beats·min–1)173.4172.7–174.19.21173.2172.8–173.69.30174.3173.5–175.09.50VERCP (L·min–1)114.7113.5–116.015.9113.9113.1–114.616.7112.7111.4–114.016.2SPEEDRCP (km·h–1)14.013.9–14.11.7714.114.0–14.11.7013.913.8–14.11.75LARCP (mmol·L–1)4.724.63–4.821.044.404.34–4.451.044.814.69–4.931.14rVO2max (mL·min–1·kg–1)53.853.3–54.36.6754.354.0–54.66.9553.853.3–54.37.09 CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; RERAT, respiratory exchange ratio at anaerobic threshold; HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold; VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold; SPEEDAT, velocity at anaerobic threshold; LAAT, blood lactate concentration at anaerobic threshold; rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; RERRCP, respiratory exchange ratio at respiratory compensation point; HRRCP, heart rate at respiratory compensation point; VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point; SPEEDRCP, velocity at respiratory compensation point; LARCP, blood lactate concentration at respiratory compensation point; rVO2max, maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass. Table 4 Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) characteristics for cyclists. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=656Testing group n=219Validation group n=219MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDrVO2AT (mL·min–1·kg–1)33.032.5–33.45.8433.232.4–33.95.6833.732.9–34.55.89RERAT0.870.87–0.870.040.870.87–0.880.040.870.87–0.880.04HRAT CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; RERAT, respiratory exchange ratio at anaerobic threshold; HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold; VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold; power at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; LAAT, blood lactate concentration at anaerobic threshold; rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; RERRCP, respiratory exchange ratio at respiratory compensation point; HRRCP, heart rate at respiratory compensation point; VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point; LARCP, blood lactate concentration at respiratory compensation point; power at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; rVO2max, maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass. selection variables were in the further only selected parameters were into multiple linear regression The data for MLR model building were randomly into that is testing, validation and of the a only significant were in the Derived are by the of mean and mean analysis was used to the model’s precision and accuracy during validation and tests to the fulfilment of MLR test the of in MLR test assessment between and test of Each model was examined the and any have not been 2 package in RStudio (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version version for and software version were used in was considered as the Results Somatic measurements and CPET results data of the runners models for testing, and validation are in Table while cyclists are in Table The runners of and for testing, and validation the cyclists and differences between of runners and cyclists were in BMI and between testing in all between validation only in CPET results for runners models are in Table 3 and for cyclists in Table Runners in the cohort achieved relative to body mass VO2max of in testing group and in validation group cyclists mean was and for testing, and validation to body mass oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold in runners for ± ± and ± of in testing, and validation it was ± ± and ± of rVO2max, relative to body mass oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point in runners for ± ± and ± of for testing, and validation while in cyclists for ± ± and ± of rVO2max, There were no significant differences in values between testing, and validation the runners and cyclists between runners and cyclists results were all significant Prediction models based on AT and RCP Full of MLR prediction models for cyclists are in Table for runners in Table The models prediction performance is as with and for cyclists from for somatic parameters to for RCP equations. For runners from for to for AT and equations. for cyclists models was the for RCP and the highest for For from for AT and to for equation. observed for cyclists was the for RCP in the validation group and the highest for while in runners the for AT and and the highest for The performance of prediction is in Figure Figure 2 Download asset Open asset of prediction for Abbreviations: maximal oxygen anaerobic threshold; RCP, respiratory compensation point; All values are in performance for running while the performance for cycling equations. performance of the prediction model for for for AT and for somatic-only equation. Table 5 VO2max prediction for cyclists. linear regression group group = = = = based on anaerobic threshold; RCP, based on respiratory compensation point; based on somatic variables mean mean maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass power at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point BF, body fat BM, body mass Table VO2max prediction for runners. linear regression group group = = = = based on anaerobic threshold; RCP, based on respiratory compensation point; based on somatic variables mean mean maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass SPEEDAT, velocity at anaerobic threshold FFM, fat mass VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold BF, body fat rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass SPEEDRCP, velocity at respiratory compensation point Models validation of each model for cyclists is in Table while for runners in Table the performance of our prediction was to that observed in the

Acoustic emission (AE) detection, as a non-electrical detection method, is very suitable for effective fault detection of power equipment with a strong electromagnetic field. However, the AE signal collected at industrial sites often contains a lot of interference noise, affecting the analysis and prediction of faults. In this study, a wavelet denoising method based on a new threshold function is proposed, to achieve a noise reduction in the low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) signals. Simulation experiment results show that the proposed threshold function not only overcomes the shortcomings of the discontinuous hard threshold function, but also solves the constant deviation of the soft threshold function. What’s more, the proposed function achieves a good adaptability. When SNR = 10 dB: The SNR of the new threshold is 20.6622, and the RMSE is 0.0026. The SNR of the hard threshold is 20.2246 and the RMSE is 0.0027, compared with the traditional hard threshold method, the SNR of the new threshold is increased by 2.16% and the root mean square error (RMSE) is reduced by 3.7%; the SNR of the soft threshold is 15.5656, and the RMSE is 0.0047, compared with the traditional soft threshold method, the new threshold has a 32.74% increase in SNR and a 40.43% reduction in RMSE. When SNR = -10 dB: The SNR of the new threshold is 4.2602, and the RMSE is 0.0172. The SNR of the hard threshold is 3.8558 and the RMSE is 0.0182, compared with the traditional hard threshold method, the SNR of the new threshold is increased by 10.49% and the RMSE is reduced by 5.49%; the SNR of the soft threshold is 2.1625, and the RMSE is 0.0212, compared with the soft threshold method, SNR is improved by 97% and RMSE is reduced by 18.87%. Performance analyses have proved that the improved wavelet denoising method can obtain a good noise reduction effect. It is very helpful for AE signal analysis with the generally low SNR, which can improve the accuracy of failure identification in subsequent acts.

All-atom molecular dynamics computer simulations were used to blindly predict the hydration free energies of a range of chloro-organic compounds as part of the SAMPL3 challenge. All compounds were parameterized within the framework of the OPLS-AA force field, using an established protocol to compute the absolute hydration free energy via a windowed free energy perturbation approach and thermodynamic integration. Three different approaches to deriving partial charge parameters were pursued: (1) using existing OPLS-AA atom types and charges with minor adjustments of partial charges on equivalent connecting atoms; (2) calculation of quantum mechanical charges via geometry optimization, followed by electrostatic potential (ESP) fitting, using Jaguar at the LMP2/cc-pVTZ(-F) level; and (3) via geometry optimization and CHelpG charges (Gaussian03 at the HF/6-31G* level), followed by two-stage RESP fitting. Protocol 3 generated the most accurate predictions with a root mean square (RMS) error of 1.2 kcal mol(-1) for the entire data set. It was found that the deficiency of the standard OPLS-AA parameters, protocol 1 (RMS error 2.4 kcal mol(-1) overall), was mostly due to compounds with more than three chlorine substituents on an aromatic ring. For this latter subset, the RMS errors were 1.4 kcal mol(-1) (protocol 3) and 4.3 kcal mol(-1) (protocol 1), respectively. We propose new OPLS-AA atom types for aromatic carbon and chlorine atoms in rings with ≥4 Cl-substituents that perform better than the best QM-based approach, resulting in an RMS error of 1.2 kcal mol(-1) for these difficult compounds.

수문학, 기상학 및 기후학 등에서 필수적인 자료중의 하나인 지상기온 자료는 최근 보건, 생물, 환경 등의 다양한 분야로까지 활용영역이 확대되고 있어 그 중요성이 커지고 있으나 지상관측을 통한 지상기온자료의 취득은 시공간적인 제약이 크기 때문에 실측된 기온자료는 시공간 해상도가 낮아 높은 해상도가 요구되는 연구 분야에서는 활용성에 큰 제약을 갖게 된다. 이를 극복하기 위한 하나의 대안으로 상대적으로 높은 시공간 해상도를 가지고 있는 위성영상자료에서 얻을 수 있는 지표면온도 자료를 이용하여 지상기온을 추정하는 많은 연구들이 수행되어 왔다. 본 연구는 이러한 연구의 일환으로써 기상청에서 제공하고 있는 AWS(Automatic Weather Station)에서 취득된 2010년 지상 온도 자료(AWS data)를 바탕으로 대표적인 지표면 온도자료인 MODIS Land Surface temperature(LST data:MOD11A1)와 지상기온에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 Land Cover Data, DEM(digital elevation model) 등의 보조 자료와 함께 다양한 지구통계 기법들을 이용하여 남한 지역의 지상기온을 추정하였다. 추정 전 2010년 전체(365일) LST자료와 AWS자료와의 차이에 대한 RMSE(Root Mean Square Error)값의 계절별 피복별 분석결과 계절에 따른 RMSE값의 변동계수는 0.86으로 나타났으나 피복에 따른 변동계수는 0.00746으로 나타나 계절별 차이가 피복별 차이보다 큰 것으로 분석 되었다. 계절별 RMSE 값은 겨울철이 가장 낮은 것으로 나타났으며 AWS자료와 LST자료와 보조자료를 이용한 선형 회귀분석결과에서도 겨울철의 결정 계수가 가장 높은 0.818로 나타났으며, 여름철의 경우에는 0.078로 나타나 계절별 차이가 매우 크게 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 지구통계 기법들의 대표적인 방법론인 크리깅 방법 중 일반적으로 많이 사용되고 있는 정규 크리깅, 일반 크리깅, 공동 크리킹, 회귀 크리깅을 이용하여 지상기온을 추정한 후 모델의 정확도를 판단할 수 있는 교차 검증을 실시한 결과 정규 크리깅과 일반 크리깅에 의한 RMSE 값은 1.71, 공동 크리깅과 회귀 크리깅에 의한 RMSE 값은 각각 1.848, 1.63으로 나타나 회귀 크리깅 방법에 의한 추정의 정확도가 가장 높은 것으로 분석되었다. Near surface air temperature data which are one of the essential factors in hydrology, meteorology and climatology, have drawn a substantial amount of attention from various academic domains and societies. Meteorological observations, however, have high spatio-temporal constraints with the limits in the number and distribution over the earth surface. To overcome such limits, many studies have sought to estimate the near surface air temperature from satellite image data at a regional or continental scale with simple regression methods. Alternatively, we applied various Kriging methods such as ordinary Kriging, universal Kriging, Cokriging, Regression Kriging in search of an optimal estimation method based on near surface air temperature data observed from automatic weather stations (AWS) in South Korea throughout 2010 (365 days) and MODIS land surface temperature (LST) data (MOD11A1, 365 images). Due to high spatial heterogeneity, auxiliary data have been also analyzed such as land cover, DEM (digital elevation model) to consider factors that can affect near surface air temperature. Prior to the main estimation, we calculated root mean square error (RMSE) of temperature differences from the 365-days LST and AWS data by season and landcover. The results show that the coefficient of variation (CV) of RMSE by season is 0.86, but the equivalent value of CV by landcover is 0.00746. Seasonal differences between LST and AWS data were greater than that those by landcover. Seasonal RMSE was the lowest in winter (3.72). The results from a linear regression analysis for examining the relationship among AWS, LST, and auxiliary data show that the coefficient of determination was the highest in winter (0.818) but the lowest in summer (0.078), thereby indicating a significant level of seasonal variation. Based on these results, we utilized a variety of Kriging techniques to estimate the surface temperature. The results of cross-validation in each Kriging model show that the measure of model accuracy was 1.71, 1.71, 1.848, and 1.630 for universal Kriging, ordinary Kriging, cokriging, and regression Kriging, respectively. The estimates from regression Kriging thus proved to be the most accurate among the Kriging methods compared.

Aiming to the difficult area of surveying and mapping, such as Antarctic, it is difficult to guarantee favourable observation condition for traditional mapping methods. Large-scale block adjustment (BA) without ground control point (GCP) is carried out by using domestic high-resolution satellite remote sensing imagery. The key technologies of BA model construction based on virtual control point (VCP), gross error detection and elimination, and robust and fast method of large-scale BA are studied in this paper. On this basis, the experimental analysis and validation of 13pairs (39 images) of ZY-3 satellite imagery in Antarctic are carried out. The results show that the sparse matrix technology can effectively reduce the memory requirement. The combined matrix block and GPU parallel technology can solve the problem of large-scale BA computational efficiency. In addition, after BA, the maximum residual is 3.920 pixel, the root mean square error (RMSE) is 0.169 pixel in the X (flight) direction, the maximum residual error is 5.933 pixel, and the RMSE is 0.191 pixel in the Y (scan) direction. The proposed method has certain accuracy and stability in large-scale BA without GCP using high-resolution satellite remote sensing imagery in Antarctica. The relative positioning accuracy can reach sub-pixel level, which can meet the requirements of cartographic splicing.