Analysis of energy-efficiency investment decisions by small and medium-sized manufacturers

This report highlights the results of a comprehensive analysis of investment decisions regarding energy-efficiency measures at small and medium-sized manufacturing plants. The analysis is based on the experiences of companies participating in the DOE Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program. The IAC program is a network of university-based centers that provides energy and waste assessments to small and medium-sized manufacturing plants. The purposes of this report are to do the following: (1) Examine what the data collected reveal about patterns of implementation of recommended energy- efficiency measures, (2) Evaluate how various factors, such as the type of industry, the characteristics of the manufacturing plants, or the cost of the measures, appear to effect implementation rates, (3) Examine reasons why recommended energy-saving measures are accepted or rejected

Extraction of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor from Quasi-Elastic 3He(pol)(e(pol),e') at Q^2 = 0.1 - 0.6 (GeV/c)^2

We have measured the spin-dependent transverse asymmetry, A_T', in quasi-elastic inclusive electron scattering from polarized 3He with high precision at Q^2 = 0.1 to 0.6 (GeV/c)^2. The neutron magnetic form factor, GMn, was extracted at Q^2 = 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)^2 using a non-relativistic Faddeev calculation that includes both final-state interactions (FSI) and meson-exchange currents (MEC). In addition, GMn was extracted at Q^2 = 0.3 to 0.6 (GeV/c)^2 using a Plane Wave Impulse Approximation calculation. The accuracy of the modeling of FSI and MEC effects was tested and confirmed with a precision measurement of the spin-dependent asymmetry in the breakup threshold region of the 3He(pol)(e(pol),e') reaction. The total relative uncertainty of the extracted GMn data is approximately 3%. Close agreement was found with other recent high-precision GMn data in this Q^2 range.Comment: Archival paper, 17 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables, submitted to Physical Review C. v2: shortened considerably, updated comparison to theor

Screening for Breast Cancer in 2018—What Should We be Doing Today?

Although screening mammography has delivered many benefits since its introduction in Canada in 1988, questions about perceived harms warrant an up-to-date review. To help oncologists and physicians provide optimal patient recommendations, the literature was reviewed to find the latest guidelines for screening mammography, including benefits and perceived harms of overdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives, and technologic advances. For women 40–74 years of age who actually participate in screening every 1–2 years, breast cancer mortality is reduced by 40%. With appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer breast cancers. False positives occur in about 10% of screened women, 80% of which are resolved with additional imaging, and 10%, with breast biopsy. An important limitation of screening is the false negatives (15%–20%). The technologic advances of digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging counter the false negatives of screening mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue

Computer Vision Tool and Technician as First Reader of Lung Cancer Screening CT Scans

To implement a cost-effective low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening program at the population level, accurate and efficient interpretation of a large volume of LDCT scans is needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate a workflow strategy to identify abnormal LDCT scans in which a technician assisted by computer vision (CV) software acts as a first reader with the aim to improve speed, consistency, and quality of scan interpretation.Without knowledge of the diagnosis, a technician reviewed 828 randomly batched scans (136 with lung cancers, 556 with benign nodules, and 136 without nodules) from the baseline Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study that had been annotated by the CV software CIRRUS Lung Screening (Diagnostic Image Analysis Group, Nijmegen, The Netherlands). The scans were classified as either normal (no nodules \geq1 mm or benign nodules) or abnormal (nodules or other abnormality). The results were compared with the diagnostic interpretation by Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study radiologists.The overall sensitivity and specificity of the technician in identifying an abnormal scan were 97.8\% (95\% confidence interval: 96.4-98.8) and 98.0\% (95\% confidence interval: 89.5-99.7), respectively. Of the 112 prevalent nodules that were found to be malignant in follow-up, 92.9\% were correctly identified by the technician plus CV compared with 84.8\% by the study radiologists. The average time taken by the technician to review a scan after CV processing was 208 ± 120 seconds.Prescreening CV software and a technician as first reader is a promising strategy for improving the consistency and quality of screening interpretation of LDCT scans