SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “SCREENING”
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.
Cumulant Green's function calculations of plasmon satellites in bulk sodium: Influence of screening and the crystal environment
Not Available
Atomic-scale mechanism of internal structural relaxation screening at polar interfaces
Not Available
Coulomb-hole and screened exchange in the electron self-energy at finite temperature
Not Available
Screening without screening: Baryon energy at high baryon density
Not Available
Dynamical screening of α − α resonant scattering and thermal nuclear scattering rate in a plasma
Not Available
Structure-mining: screening structure models by automated fitting to the atomic pair distribution function over large numbers of models
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
N-k Failure Analysis Algorithm for Identification of Extreme Events for Cascading Outage Pre-screening process
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Sun Screens: Maintaining Grid Reliability and Distributed Energy Project Viability through Improved Technical Screens
This discussion paper focuses on the interconnection process for smaller PV systems(less than or equal to 10 kW), as this phase can have a major impact on project success.
Environmental Stress Screening and Strength of Screen Evaluation for Dormant-Storage Devices.
Abstract not provided.
Environmental Stress Screening and Strength of Screen Evaluation for Dormant-Storage Devices.
Abstract not provided.
Two-Piece Screens for Decontaminating Granular Material
Two-piece screens have been designed specifically for use in filtering a granular material to remove contaminant particles that are significantly wider or longer than are the desired granules. In the original application for which the twopiece screens were conceived, the granular material is ammonium perchlorate and the contaminant particles tend to be wires and other relatively long, rigid strands. The basic design of the twopiece screens can be adapted to other granular materials and contaminants by modifying critical dimensions to accommodate different grain and contaminant- particle sizes. A two-piece screen of this type consists mainly of (1) a top flat plate perforated with circular holes arranged in a hexagonal pattern and (2) a bottom plate that is also perforated with circular holes (but not in a pure hexagonal pattern) and is folded into an accordion structure. Fabrication of the bottom plate begins with drilling circular holes into a flat plate in a hexagonal pattern that is interrupted, at regular intervals, by parallel gaps. The plate is then folded into the accordion structure along the gaps. Because the folds are along the gaps, there are no holes at the peaks and valleys of the accordion screen. The top flat plate and the bottom accordion plate are secured within a metal frame. The resulting two-piece screen is placed at the bottom opening of a feed hopper containing the granular material to be filtered. Tests have shown that such long, rigid contaminant strands as wires readily can pass through a filter consisting of the flat screen alone and that the addition of the accordion screen below the flat screen greatly increases the effectiveness of removal of wires and other contaminant strands. Part of the reason for increased effectiveness is in the presentation of the contaminant to the filter surface. Testing has shown that wire type contamination will readily align itself parallel to the material direction flow. Since this direction of flow is nearly always perpendicular to the filter surface holes, the contamination is automatically aligned to pass through. The two-filter configuration reduces the likelihood that a given contaminant strand will be aligned with the flow of material by eliminating the perpendicular presentation angle. Thus, for wires of a certain diameter, a two-piece screen is 20 percent more effective than is the corresponding flat perforated plate alone, even if the holes in the flat plate are narrower. An accordion screen alone is similarly effective in catching contaminants, but lumps of agglomerated granules of the desired material often collect in the valleys and clog the screen. The addition of a flat screen above the accordion screen prevents clogging of the accordion screen. Flat wire screens have often been used to remove contaminants from granular materials, and are about as effective as are the corresponding perforated flat plates used alone.
Boron-Based Neutron Scintillator Screen Characterization with X-Rays and Neutrons
Recent work on boron-based neutron scintillator screens suggests these screens can offer superior performance when compared to commonly used screens. Borated neutron scintillator screens perform well in terms of light output (5-6 times greater than a standard Gadox screen) and detection effi-ciency (larger than standard LiF+ZnS screens). However, previously manu-factured boron-based screens have exhibited non-uniform surface coating and a poor mixture between phosphor and converter particles. The objective of this work was to evaluate newly fabricated scintillator screens to deter-mine if enhanced fabrication methods produced a more homogeneous distribution between neutron converter and scintillation phosphor particles. Uniformity of scintillator material deposition was also inspected. This new iteration of screens appeared more uniform than previous generations with the new coating method improving surface chemistry and scintillator material homogeneity. Additionally, a new methodology for screen characterization, involving the correlation of a neutron image taken with a borated scintillator screen to X-ray computed tomography of that same screen, was demonstrated to elucidate a relationship between scintillator screen thickness and relative light output of the screen under neutron exposure. This method suggested that the ideal thickness of scintillator material was ~150 µm to maximize light output of the screen.
WE-D-207-00: CT Lung Cancer Screening and the Medical Physicist: Moving Forward
In the United States, Lung Cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than the next four cancers combined. In addition, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer patients has not improved over the past 40 to 50 years. To combat this deadly disease, in 2002 the National Cancer Institute launched a very large Randomized Control Trial called the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This trial would randomize subjects who had substantial risk of lung cancer (due to age and smoking history) into either a Chest X-ray arm or a low dose CT arm. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute announced that the NLST had demonstrated 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among those who were screened with low-dose CT than with chest X-ray. In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the use of Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT and a little over a year later (Feb. 2015), CMS announced that Medicare would also cover Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT. Thus private and public insurers are required to provide Lung Cancer Screening programs using CT to the appropriate population(s). The purpose of this Symposium is to inform medical physicists and prepare them to support the implementation of Lung Screening programs. This Symposium will focus on the clinical aspects of lung cancer screening, requirements of a screening registry for systematically capturing and tracking screening patients and results (such as required Medicare data elements) as well as the role of the medical physicist in screening programs, including the development of low dose CT screening protocols. Learning Objectives: To understand the clinical basis and clinical components of a lung cancer screening program, including eligibility criteria and other requirements. To understand the data collection requirements, workflow, and informatics infrastructure needed to support the tracking and reporting components of a screening program. To understand the role of the medical physicist in implementing Lung Cancer Screening protocols for CT, including utilizing resources such as the AAPM Protocols and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Center program. UCLA Department of Radiology has an Institutional research agreement with Siemens Healthcare; Dr. McNitt-Gray has been a recipient of Research Support from Siemens Healthcare in the past. Dr. Aberle has been a Member of Advisory Boards for the LUNGevity Foundation (2011-present) and Siemens Medical Solutions. (2013)
WE-D-207-01: Background and Clinical Implementation of a Screening Program
In the United States, Lung Cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than the next four cancers combined. In addition, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer patients has not improved over the past 40 to 50 years. To combat this deadly disease, in 2002 the National Cancer Institute launched a very large Randomized Control Trial called the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This trial would randomize subjects who had substantial risk of lung cancer (due to age and smoking history) into either a Chest X-ray arm or a low dose CT arm. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute announced that the NLST had demonstrated 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among those who were screened with low-dose CT than with chest X-ray. In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the use of Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT and a little over a year later (Feb. 2015), CMS announced that Medicare would also cover Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT. Thus private and public insurers are required to provide Lung Cancer Screening programs using CT to the appropriate population(s). The purpose of this Symposium is to inform medical physicists and prepare them to support the implementation of Lung Screening programs. This Symposium will focus on the clinical aspects of lung cancer screening, requirements of a screening registry for systematically capturing and tracking screening patients and results (such as required Medicare data elements) as well as the role of the medical physicist in screening programs, including the development of low dose CT screening protocols. Learning Objectives: To understand the clinical basis and clinical components of a lung cancer screening program, including eligibility criteria and other requirements. To understand the data collection requirements, workflow, and informatics infrastructure needed to support the tracking and reporting components of a screening program. To understand the role of the medical physicist in implementing Lung Cancer Screening protocols for CT, including utilizing resources such as the AAPM Protocols and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Center program. UCLA Department of Radiology has an Institutional research agreement with Siemens Healthcare; Dr. McNitt-Gray has been a recipient of Research Support from Siemens Healthcare in the past. Dr. Aberle has been a Member of Advisory Boards for the LUNGevity Foundation (2011-present) and Siemens Medical Solutions. (2013)
Optimal Stopping Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Importance Prior studies have shown that the benefits, harms, and costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at older ages are associated with a patient’s sex, health, and screening history. However, these studies were hypothetical exercises and not directly informed by data on CRC risk. Objective To identify the optimal stopping ages for CRC screening by sex, comorbidity, and screening history from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation first validated the MISCAN-Colon (Microsimulation Screening Analysis–Colon) model against community-based CRC incidence and mortality rates for 2 subcohorts of the PRECISE (Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Precision and Outcomes in Community-Based Populations) cohort. Subsequently, different CRC screening scenarios were simulated in older individuals. Cohorts of US adults aged 76 to 90 years varied by sex and comorbidity status (none, low, moderate, or severe). Statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed from March 2023 to May 2024. Exposures CRC screening histories including fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, such as a negative colonoscopy result from 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years before the index age; 1 to 5 negative FIT results within 5 years of the index age, with different patterns of recency; or a combination of negative colonoscopy and negative FIT results. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes included estimated lifetime clinical outcomes, incremental costs, and quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG) associated with 1 additional FIT or colonoscopy. Optimal stopping age for screening, defined as the oldest age for which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was still below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $\$$100 000 per QALYG, was evaluated. Results The first of the 2 PRECISE subcohorts used in validating the simulation model included 25 974 adults (15 060 females [58.0%]; 54.7% aged 76 to 80 years) with a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index date. The second subcohort consisted of 118 269 adults (67 058 females [56.7%]; 90.5% aged 76 to 80 years) with a negative FIT result 1 year before the index date. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity levels, and recent CRC screenings were associated with reduced incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness of additional screening. For the reference cohort of 76-year-old females without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age, 1 additional colonoscopy cost $\$$38 226 per QALYG. For cohorts with otherwise equivalent characteristics, associated costs increased to $\$$1 689 945 per QALYG for females at age 90 years without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy results 10 years before the index age, $\$$51 604 per QALYG for males at age 76 years without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age, and $\$$108 480 per QALYG for females at age 76 years with severe comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age and decreased to $\$$16 870 per QALYG for females without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 30 years before the index age. The optimal stopping ages across different cohorts ranged from younger than 76 to 86 years for colonoscopy and younger than 76 to 88 years for FIT. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation, age, sex, screening history, comorbidity, and future screening modality were associated with the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal stopping age for CRC screening. These results can inform guideline development and patient-directed informed decision-making.