Questioning standard imaging protocols

qUEstIONING tHE NAtUrE OF stANDArD EVALUAtION

This chapter introduces situated evaluation as an approach for evaluating socio-technical innovation and change. Many current evaluations simply identify the impacts of technology and deprecate alternate uses in their analysis. Situated evaluation instead calls for understanding how innovations emerge through use; this entails consideration of diverse uses, the contexts of use, and the reasons ...

Security protocols in Bluetooth Standard

MR Protocols Breast Imaging

Compared with 1.5T, 3T imaging has the inherent advantage of providing a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and higher resolution or faster scans, although there are trade-offs among these as well as certain limitations. 3T MR has a high specific absorption rate (four times that of 1.5T), decreased B1 homogeneity, longer T1 relaxation time, and increased susceptibility artifact. Despite these p...

Standard PET imaging protocols and phantom test procedures and criteria: executive summary

The standard protocols described in this document cover subject preparation, injection activity, accumulation time, subject positioning, scan time and the criteria for determination of reconstruction parameters for each PET camera based on phantom data. The idea is to standardize the methods and conditions that would affect the PET image qualitatively or quantitatively. However, the image quali...

Specifying Agent Interaction Protocols with Standard UML

In this paper, I will demonstrate how the Unified Modeling Language (UML) can be used to describe agent interaction protocols. The approach that is presented in this paper does not propose enhancements or completely new diagrams but instead relies on existing UML elements and the UML extension mechanism that is part of the standard. This conformity with the base UML is a major advantage of the ...