Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Review”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews the human factors engineering (HFE) aspects of nuclear power plants in accordance with the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition). The Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (NUREG-0711, Revision 3, issued November 2012) contains detailed design review procedures. As part of the review process, the interfaces between plant personnel and the plant's systems and components are evaluated for conformance with HFE guidelines. This document, Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700, Revision 3), provides the guidelines necessary to perform this evaluation. The review guidelines address the physical and functional characteristics of human-system interfaces (HSIs). Because these guidelines only address the HFE aspects of design and not other related considerations, such as instrumentation and control and structural design, they are referred to as HFE guidelines. In addition to the review of actual HSIs, the NRC staff can use the NUREG-0700 guidelines to evaluate a design-specific HFE guidelines document or style guide. The HFE guidelines are organized into four basic parts, which are divided into sections. Part I contains guidelines for the basic HSI elements: information displays, user-interface interaction and management, and analog displays and controls. These elements are used as building blocks to develop HSI systems to serve specific functions. Part II contains the guidelines for reviewing the following HSI systems: alarm system, safety parameter display system, group-view display system, soft control system, computer-based procedure system, automation system, and communication system. Part III provides guidelines for the review of workstations and workplaces. Part IV provides guidelines for the review of HSI support (i.e., maintainability of digital systems and degraded HSI and instrumentation and control conditions).

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical Input for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review of the 2017 Edition of ASME Section III, Division 5, ‘High Temperature Reactors’

To assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its decision making on endorsement of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5 (2017 Edition) for development of advanced non-light water reactors, the following Division 5 portions were reviewed: Article HBB-2000 Material; Article HCB-2000 Material; Article HGB-2000 Material; Mandatory Appendix HBB-I-14 Tables and Figures; and, Nonmandatory Appendix HBB-U Guidelines for Restricted Material Specifications to Improve Performance in Certain Service Applications. In addition to the 2017 Edition, the same parts of the 2019 Edition have also been reviewed as indicated in various sections of the report. This review was conducted by a collaboration of national laboratory and private sector participants with significant industrial experience, including some heavy lifting and deep diving from Clarus Consulting, LLC., all intended to achieve an objective, independent, and practical perspective. The report provides recommendations, descriptions of the evaluation methods, and the source references for the data used. To build confidence required for endorsement of the Code, this review was conducted as a verification and validation of the above Code contents. The objective of verification is to ensure that the Code is free of error – direct or implied; contains the information needed for its use, including proper coverage of the Code-specified materials for the intended application, and completeness and adequacy of references to other portions of the Code. The objective of validation is to authenticate that the Code tabulations and graphs represent design inputs consistent with what are determined using rules and methods specified by the Code. The authentication process used data that were assembled and/or generated independent of Code development, while the methods of analysis followed Code-specified methods where appropriate. The designated portions for this review cover the five alloys codified for high temperature reactor applications in Division 5, i.e. 316 SS, 304 SS, 800H, 2¼Cr-1Mo, and 9Cr-1Mo-V, regarding their general requirements, permitted specifications and design stress intensity values for pressure-retaining applications, deterioration in service, fatigue acceptance test, permissible weld materials, tensile and yield strength, expected minimum stress-to-rupture values (including for Alloy 718), weld stress rupture factors, permissible materials for bolting use, and restricted specifications in certain service applications. Additionally, stress intensity values for bolting materials including 316 SS, 304 SS and alloy 718 were reviewed. Analysis and discussion are also provided on contents outside of these designated Code portions where it was deemed relevant and necessary to develop a technically sound understanding of issues relating to the designated portions. Due to unavailability of sufficient test data on welds during the review period, the weld stress rupture factors in Tables HBB-I-10.14A to E, which cover a total of ten tables for the five alloys welded with twenty-eight different weld metals (some with similar properties), have been deferred to a future review effort. The review identified mainly two types of issues. The first type includes instances where the Code is found factually incomplete or incorrect, such as obsolete materials specifications listings, missing tabulation of stresses for bolting. Changes to the Code are recommended in these cases. The second type of issue includes instances where the Code tabulations and graphs are found to be less conservative than the review analysis results. In these cases, recommendations are made for further review and consideration where the difference in conservatism exceeds 10%, which is our threshold for questioning technical adequacy, meriting a risk assessment by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or reactor designers. It is noted that this effort has been executed using all available data and established methods of analysis, including methods and criteria specified and used by the Code. As such, the findings that are presented in quantitative detail, in a format for convenient comparison with the Code, and with identification of where further review is recommended, should provide a sound technical basis for decisions about quantifying the implications of the reduced design margins and technical adequacy/inadequacy to form a basis for conditioning specific Code tabulation values on endorsement. Recommendations for specific changes to the Code, however, entail design conservatism considerations beyond the scope of this review effort, and are not made in this report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding

We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRD-01: Quantifying the Effectiveness of the Physics Pre-Treatment Plan Review for Detecting Errors in Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Physics pre-treatment plan review is crucial to safe radiation oncology treatments. Studies show that most errors originate in treatment planning, which underscores the importance of physics plan review. As a QA measure the physics review is of fundamental importance and is central to the profession of medical physics. However, little is known about its effectiveness. More hard data are needed. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effectiveness of physics review with the goal of improving it. Methods: This study analyzed 315 “potentially serious” near-miss incidents within an institutional incident learning system collected over a two-year period. 139 of these originated prior to physics review and were found at the review or after. Incidents were classified as events that: 1)were detected by physics review, 2)could have been detected (but were not), and 3)could not have been detected. Category 1 and 2 events were classified by which specific check (within physics review) detected or could have detected the event. Results: Of the 139 analyzed events, 73/139 (53%) were detected or could have been detected by the physics review; although, 42/73 (58%) were not actually detected. 45/73 (62%) errors originated in treatment planning, making physics review the first step in the workflow that could detect the error. Two specific physics checks were particularly effective (combined effectiveness of >20%): verifying DRRs (8/73) and verifying isocenter (7/73). Software-based plan checking systems were evaluated and found to have potential effectiveness of 40%. Given current data structures, software implementations of some tests such as isocenter verification check would be challenging. Conclusion: Physics plan review is a key safety measure and can detect majority of reported events. However, a majority of events that potentially could have been detected were NOT detected in this study, indicating the need to improve the performance of physics review.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training

In this study, we developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review criteria. Enhancing reviewer training may improve the reliability and accuracy of research grant proposal scoring and funding recommendations. Seventy-five Public Health professors from U.S. research universities watched the training video we produced and assigned scores to the National Institutes of Health scoring criteria proposal summary descriptions. For both novice and experienced reviewers, the training video increased scoring accuracy (the percentage of scores that reflect the true rating scale values), inter-rater reliability, and the amount of time reading the review criteria compared to the no video condition. The increase in reliability for experienced reviewers is notable because it is commonly assumed that reviewers—especially those with experience—have good understanding of the grant review rating scale. Our findings suggest that both experienced and novice reviewers who had not received the type of training developed in this study may not have appropriate understanding of the definitions and meaning for each value of the rating scale and that experienced reviewers may overestimate their knowledge of the rating scale. Lastly, the results underscore the benefits of and need for specialized peer reviewer training.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS2003

A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

Chao, Lawrence P.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Engineering Technical Review Planning Briefing

The general topics covered in the engineering technical planning briefing are 1) overviews of NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Engineering, 2) the NASA Systems Engineering(SE) Engine and its implementation , 3) the NASA Project Life Cycle, 4) MSFC Technical Management Branch Services in relation to the SE Engine and the Project Life Cycle , 5) Technical Reviews, 6) NASA Human Factor Design Guidance , and 7) the MSFC Human Factors Team. The engineering technical review portion of the presentation is the primary focus of the overall presentation and will address the definition of a design review, execution guidance, the essential stages of a technical review, and the overall review planning life cycle. Examples of a technical review plan content, review approaches, review schedules, and the review process will be provided and discussed. The human factors portion of the presentation will focus on the NASA guidance for human factors. Human factors definition, categories, design guidance, and human factor specialist roles will be addressed. In addition, the NASA Systems Engineering Engine description, definition, and application will be reviewed as background leading into the NASA Project Life Cycle Overview and technical review planning discussion.

Gardner, Terrie↗
DOE OSTI2015

Real-Time Pretreatment Review Limits Unacceptable Deviations on a Cooperative Group Radiation Therapy Technique Trial: Quality Assurance Results of RTOG 0933

Purpose: RTOG 0933 was a phase II trial of hippocampal avoidance during whole brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastases. The results demonstrated improvement in short-term memory decline, as compared with historical control individuals, and preservation of quality of life. Integral to the conduct of this trial were quality assurance processes inclusive of pre-enrollment credentialing and pretreatment centralized review of enrolled patients. Methods and Materials: Before enrolling patients, all treating physicians and sites were required to successfully complete a “dry-run” credentialing test. The treating physicians were credentialed based on accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–computed tomography image fusion and hippocampal and normal tissue contouring, and the sites were credentialed based on protocol-specified dosimetric criteria. Using the same criteria, pretreatment centralized review of enrolled patients was conducted. Physicians enrolling 3 consecutive patients without unacceptable deviations were permitted to enroll further patients without pretreatment review, although their cases were reviewed after treatment. Results: In all, 113 physicians and 84 sites were credentialed. Eight physicians (6.8%) failed hippocampal contouring on the first attempt; 3 were approved on the second attempt. Eight sites (9.5%) failed intensity modulated radiation therapy planning on the first attempt; all were approved on the second attempt. One hundred thirteen patients were enrolled in RTOG 0933; 100 were analyzable. Eighty-seven cases were reviewed before treatment; 5 (5.7%) violated the eligibility criteria, and 21 (24%) had unacceptable deviations. With feedback, 18 cases were approved on the second attempt and 2 cases on the third attempt. One patient was treated off protocol. Twenty-two cases were reviewed after treatment; 1 (4.5%) violated the eligibility criteria, and 5 (23%) had unacceptable deviations. Conclusions: Although >95% of the cases passed the pre-enrollment credentialing, the pretreatment centralized review disqualified 5.7% of reviewed cases, prevented unacceptable deviations in 24% of reviewed cases, and limited the final unacceptable deviation rate to 5%. Thus, pretreatment review is deemed necessary in future hippocampal avoidance trials and is potentially useful in other similarly challenging radiation therapy technique trials.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-148: Benchmarks and Pre-Treatment Reviews: A Study of Quality Assurance Effectiveness

Purpose: To determine the impact benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews have on improving the quality of submitted clinical trial data. Methods: Benchmarks are used to evaluate a site’s ability to develop a treatment that meets a specific protocol’s treatment guidelines prior to placing their first patient on the protocol. A pre-treatment review is an actual patient placed on the protocol in which the dosimetry and contour volumes are evaluated to be per protocol guidelines prior to allowing the beginning of the treatment. A key component of these QA mechanisms is that sites are provided timely feedback to educate them on how to plan per the protocol and prevent protocol deviations on patients accrued to a protocol. For both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews a dose volume analysis (DVA) was performed using MIM softwareTM. For pre-treatment reviews a volume contour evaluation was also performed. Results: IROC Houston performed a QA effectiveness analysis of a protocol which required both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews. In 70 percent of the patient cases submitted, the benchmark played an effective role in assuring that the pre-treatment review of the cases met protocol requirements. The 35 percent of sites failing the benchmark subsequently modified there planning technique to pass the benchmark before being allowed to submit a patient for pre-treatment review. However, in 30 percent of the submitted cases the pre-treatment review failed where the majority (71 percent) failed the DVA. 20 percent of sites submitting patients failed to correct their dose volume discrepancies indicated by the benchmark case. Conclusion: Benchmark cases and pre-treatment reviews can be an effective QA tool to educate sites on protocol guidelines and to minimize deviations. Without the benchmark cases it is possible that 65 percent of the cases undergoing a pre-treatment review would have failed to meet the protocols requirements.Support: U24-CA-180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

2016 Annual Summary Report for the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites at the Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada: Review of the Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses

The Maintenance Plan for the Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses for the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites at the Nevada Test Site (National Security Technologies, LLC 2007a) requires an annual review to assess the adequacy of the performance assessments (PAs) and composite analyses (CAs), with the results submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management. The Disposal Authorization Statements for the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) also require that such reviews be made and that secondary or minor unresolved issues be tracked and addressed as part of the maintenance plan.The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) performed an annual review of the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMS PAs and CAs for federal fiscal year (FY) 2016. This annual summary report presents results and conclusions of the FY 2016 review, and determines the adequacy of the PAs and CAs. Operational factors (e.g., waste forms and containers, facility design, and waste receipts), closure plans, monitoring results, and research and development (R&D) activities were reviewed to determine the adequacy of the PAs. Likewise, the environmental restoration activities at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) relevant to the sources of residual radioactive material that are considered in the CAs, the land-use planning, and the results of the environmental monitoring and R&D activities were reviewed to determine the adequacy of the CAs. Important developments in FY 2016 include the following: Development of a new Area 5 RWMS closure inventory estimate based on disposals through FY 2016, Evaluation of new or revised waste streams by special analysis, and Development and acceptance of version 4.200 of the Area 5 RWMS GoldSim PA/CA model. The Area 3 RWMS has been in inactive status since July 1, 2006, with the last shipment received in April 2006. The FY 2016 review of operations, facility design, closure plans, monitoring results, and R&D results for the Area 3 RWMS indicates no changes that would impact PA validity. The conclusion of the annual review is that all performance objectives can be met and the Area 3 RWMS PA remains valid. There is no need to revise the Area 3 RWMS PA. Review of Area 5 RWMS operations, design, closure plans, monitoring results, and R&D activities indicates that no significant changes have occurred. The FY 2016 PA results, generated with the Area 5 RWMS v4.200 GoldSim PA model, indicate that there continues to be a reasonable expectation of meeting all performance objectives. All results remain less than 50% of their performance objectives. The results and conclusions of the Area 5 RWMS PA are judged valid, and there is no need to the revise the PA. A review of changes potentially impacting the CAs indicates that no significant changes occurred in FY 2016. A new Corrective Action Unit (CAU), CAU 576, with corrective action sites near the Area 3 RWMS and Area 5 RWMS was identified in FY 2016. The sites are currently under investigation and not expected to be important sources for the CA. The continuing adequacy of the CAs was evaluated with the new models, and no significant changes that would alter the CAs’ results or conclusions were found. The revision of the Area 3 RWMS CA, which will include the Yucca Flat Underground Test Area (CAU 97) source, is scheduled for FY 2024, following the completion of the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan. Inclusion of the Frenchman Flat Underground Test Area (CAU 98) source in the Area 5 RWMS CA is planned pending the completion of the CAU 98 Closure Report in FY 2017. Near-term R&D efforts will focus on continuing development of the PA, CA, and inventory models for the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

2024 Annual Merit Review - Vehicle Technologies Office: Results Report

The 2024 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 3-6, 2024, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 226 individual activities were reviewed by 218 reviewers. Exactly 888 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. Each project was reviewed by 2–7 independent reviewers, with a majority of projects having 4–5 reviewers. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
NASA NTRS2010

Support for Systematic Code Reviews with the SCRUB Tool

SCRUB is a code review tool that supports both large, team-based software development efforts (e.g., for mission software) as well as individual tasks. The tool was developed at JPL to support a new, streamlined code review process that combines human-generated review reports with program-generated review reports from a customizable range of state-of-the-art source code analyzers. The leading commercial tools include Codesonar, Coverity, and Klocwork, each of which can achieve a reasonably low rate of false-positives in the warnings that they generate. The time required to analyze code with these tools can vary greatly. In each case, however, the tools produce results that would be difficult to realize with human code inspections alone. There is little overlap in the results produced by the different analyzers, and each analyzer used generally increases the effectiveness of the overall effort. The SCRUB tool allows all reports to be accessed through a single, uniform interface (see figure) that facilitates brows ing code and reports. Improvements over existing software include significant simplification, and leveraging of a range of commercial, static source code analyzers in a single, uniform framework. The tool runs as a small stand-alone application, avoiding the security problems related to tools based on Web browsers. A developer or reviewer, for instance, must have already obtained access rights to a code base before that code can be browsed and reviewed with the SCRUB tool. The tool cannot open any files or folders to which the user does not already have access. This means that the tool does not need to enforce or administer any additional security policies. The analysis results presented through the SCRUB tool s user interface are always computed off-line, given that, especially for larger projects, this computation can take longer than appropriate for interactive tool use. The recommended code review process that is supported by the SCRUB tool consists of three phases: Code Review, Developer Response, and Closeout Resolution. In the Code Review phase, all tool-based analysis reports are generated, and specific comments from expert code reviewers are entered into the SCRUB tool. In the second phase, Developer Response, the developer is asked to respond to each comment and tool-report that was produced, either agreeing or disagreeing to provide a fix that addresses the issue that was raised. In the third phase, Closeout Resolution, all disagreements are discussed in a meeting of all parties involved, and a resolution is made for all disagreements. The first two phases generally take one week each, and the third phase is concluded in a single closeout meeting.

Holzmann, Gerald J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Actions Needed to Ensure Scientific and Technical Information is Adequately Reviewed at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center

This audit was initiated in response to a hotline complaint regarding the review, approval, and release of scientific and technical information (STI) at Johnson Space Center. The complainant alleged that Johnson personnel conducting export control reviews of STI were not fully qualified to conduct those reviews and that the reviews often did not occur until after the STI had been publicly released. NASA guidance requires that STI, defined as the results of basic and applied scientific, technical, and related engineering research and development, undergo certain reviews prior to being released outside of NASA or to audiences that include foreign nationals. The process includes technical, national security, export control, copyright, and trade secret (e.g., proprietary data) reviews. The review process was designed to preclude the inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information while ensuring that NASA complies with a requirement of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the Space Act)1 to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information resulting from NASA research activities. We focused our audit on evaluating the STI review process: specifically, determining whether the roles and responsibilities for the review, approval, and release of STI were adequately defined and documented in NASA and Center-level guidance and whether that guidance was effectively implemented at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Johnson was included in the review because it was the source of the initial complaint, and Goddard, Langley, and Marshall were included because those Centers consistently produce significant amounts of STI.

Information management↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Integrated Medical Model: Outcomes from Independent Review

In 2016, the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) v4.0 underwent an extensive external review in preparation for transition to an operational status. In order to insure impartiality of the review process, the Exploration Medical Capabilities Element of NASA's Human Research Program convened the review through the Systems Review Office at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The review board convened by GSFC consisted of persons from both NASA and academia with expertise in the fields of statistics, epidemiology, modeling, software development, aerospace medicine, and project management (see Figure 1). The board reviewed software and code standards, as well as evidence pedigree associated with both the input and outcomes information. The board also assesses the models verification, validation, sensitivity to parameters and ability to answer operational questions. This talk will discuss the processes for designing the review, how the review progressed and the findings from the board, as well as summarize the IMM project responses to those findings. Overall, the board found that the IMM is scientifically sound, represents a necessary, comprehensive approach to identifying medical and environmental risks facing astronauts in long duration missions and is an excellent tool for communication between engineers and physicians. The board also found IMM and its customer(s) should convene an additional review of the IMM data sources and to develop a sustainable approach to augment, peer review, and maintain the information utilized in the IMM. The board found this is critically important because medical knowledge continues to evolve. Delivery of IMM v4.0 to the Crew Health and Safety (CHS) Program will occur in the 2017. Once delivered for operational decision support, IMM v4.0 will provide CHS with additional quantitative capability in to assess astronaut medical risks and required medical capabilities to help drive down overall mission risks.

medical equipment↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinical trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and builds a comprehensive database for potential clinical outcome evaluation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Deep Learning Systems for Increased Safeguards Surveillance Review Productivity

Nuclear safeguards inspectors expend significant time and maintain intense focus in reviewing video surveillance for safeguards relevant events. To increase efficiency and reduce the time burden of safeguards inspectors performing surveillance data review, this paper presents a novel deep learning (DL) systems concept to integrate generalized DL models into the safeguards surveillance review workflow. The Agency is investigating several DL algorithms for object recognition, localization, tracking, and flagging relevant activities. The project team is working closely with nuclear safeguards inspectors to identify review use cases (based on specific safeguards objectives) and collect their associated requirements. We focused on CANDU and LWR Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and their associated dry storage areas as these present a particularly heavy burden on the inspector surveillance review process due to the number of these facilities under safeguards worldwide. Initial DL algorithm results on safeguards data are promising. Using a convolutional neural network, the team attained a mean average precision (mAP) of 92.9% identifying and localizing spent fuel (SF) casks from a 475 surveillance image dataset. Further, the team had initial success in training a recurrent neural network to identify reactor area activities in video clips, successfully indicating when SF casks enter or exit a pool. We discuss how such DL algorithms would be integrated into the Next Generation Surveillance Review (NGSR) software application. Another issue impacting review productivity is the long time inspectors may have to wait when running these algorithms in NGSR. We present a concept to pre-process remotely collected surveillance data with DL models as the data arrives to IAEA headquarters so that results are already available when starting a new review in NGSR. The proposed DL system concept shows a pathway and workflow for increasing an inspector’s surveillance review productivity by quickly and accurately identifying declared and undeclared safeguards relevant objects and activities in large quantities of surveillance imagery data.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2020

Review of Particle Physics

The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 3,324 new measurements from 878 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on High Energy Soft QCD and Diffraction and one on the Determination of CKM Angles from B Hadrons. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 98 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 22 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Pariicle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print and as a web version optimized for use on phones as well as an Android app.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Review of Particle Physics

Abstract The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 2,143 new measurements from 709 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on Machine Learning, and one on Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 97 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 23 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print, as a web version optimized for use on phones, and as an Android app.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗