Dataset Information

Performance test and verification of an off-the-shelf automated avian radar tracking system.

ABSTRACT: Microwave radar is an important tool for observation of birds in flight and represents a tremendous increase in observation capability in terms of amount of surveillance space that can be covered at relatively low cost. Based on off-the-shelf radar hardware, automated radar tracking systems have been developed for monitoring avian movements. However, radar used as an observation instrument in biological research has its limitations that are important to be aware of when analyzing recorded radar data. This article describes a method for exploring the detection capabilities of a dedicated short-range avian radar system used inside the operational Smøla wind-power plant. The purpose of the testing described was to find the maximum detection range for various sized birds, while controlling for the effects of flight tortuosity, flight orientation relative to the radar and ground clutter. The method was to use a dedicated test target in form of a remotely controlled unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with calibrated radar cross section (RCS), which enabled the design of virtually any test flight pattern within the area of interest. The UAV had a detection probability of 0.5 within a range of 2,340 m from the radar. The detection performance obtained by the RCS-calibrated test target (-11 dBm², 0.08 m² RCS) was then extrapolated to find the corresponding performance of differently sized birds. Detection range depends on system sensitivity, the environment within which the radar is placed and the spatial distribution of birds. The avian radar under study enables continuous monitoring of bird activity within a maximum range up to 2 km dependent on the size of the birds in question. While small bird species may be detected up to 0.5-1 km, larger species may be detected up to 1.5-2 km distance from the radar.

SUBMITTER: May R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5552925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A dose calculation verification system (VS) was acquired and commissioned as a second check on the treatment planning system (TPS). This system reads DICOM CT datasets, RT plans, RT structures, and RT dose from the TPS and automatically, using its own collapsed cone superposition/convolution algorithm, computes dose on the same CT dataset. The system was commissioned by extracting basic beam parameters for simple field geometries and dose verification for complex treatments. Percent depth doses (PDD) and profiles were extracted for field sizes using jaw settings 3 × 3 cm2 - 40 × 40 cm2 and compared to measured data, as well as our TPS model. Smaller fields of 1 × 1 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 generated using the multileaf collimator (MLC) were analyzed in the same fashion as the open fields. In addition, 40 patient plans consisting of both IMRT and VMAT were computed and the following comparisons were made: 1) TPS to the VS, 2) VS to measured data, and 3) TPS to measured data where measured data is both ion chamber (IC) and film measurements. Our results indicated for all field sizes using jaw settings PDD errors for the VS on average were less than 0.87%, 1.38%, and 1.07% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively, relative to measured data. PDD errors for MLC field sizes were less than 2.28%, 1.02%, and 2.23% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively. The infield profile analysis yielded results less than 0.58% for 6x, 0.61% for 15x, and 0.77% for 18x for the VS relative to measured data. Analysis of the penumbra region yields results ranging from 66.5% points, meeting the DTA criteria to 100% of the points for smaller field sizes for all energies. Analysis of profile data for field sizes generated using the MLC saw agreement with infield DTA analysis ranging from 68.8%-100% points passing the 1.5%/1.5 mm criteria. Results from the dose verification for IMRT and VMAT beams indicated that, on average, the ratio of TPS to IC and VS to IC measurements was 100.5 ± 1.9% and 100.4 ± 1.3%, respectively, while our TPS to VS was 100.1 ± 1.0%. When comparing the TPS and VS to film measurements, the average percentage pixels passing a 3%/3mm criteria based gamma analysis were 96.6 ± 4.2% and 97 ± 5.6%, respectively. When the VS was compared to the TPS, on average 98.1 ± 5.3% of pixels passed the gamma analysis. Based upon these preliminary results, the VS system should be able to calculate dose adequately as a verification tool of our TPS.

Project description:Air pollution epidemiological studies are increasingly using global positioning system (GPS) to collect time-location data because they offer continuous tracking, high temporal resolution, and minimum reporting burden for participants. However, substantial uncertainties in the processing and classifying of raw GPS data create challenges for reliably characterizing time activity patterns. We developed and evaluated models to classify people's major time activity patterns from continuous GPS tracking data.We developed and evaluated two automated models to classify major time activity patterns (i.e., indoor, outdoor static, outdoor walking, and in-vehicle travel) based on GPS time activity data collected under free living conditions for 47 participants (N = 131 person-days) from the Harbor Communities Time Location Study (HCTLS) in 2008 and supplemental GPS data collected from three UC-Irvine research staff (N = 21 person-days) in 2010. Time activity patterns used for model development were manually classified by research staff using information from participant GPS recordings, activity logs, and follow-up interviews. We evaluated two models: (a) a rule-based model that developed user-defined rules based on time, speed, and spatial location, and (b) a random forest decision tree model.Indoor, outdoor static, outdoor walking and in-vehicle travel activities accounted for 82.7%, 6.1%, 3.2% and 7.2% of manually-classified time activities in the HCTLS dataset, respectively. The rule-based model classified indoor and in-vehicle travel periods reasonably well (Indoor: sensitivity > 91%, specificity > 80%, and precision > 96%; in-vehicle travel: sensitivity > 71%, specificity > 99%, and precision > 88%), but the performance was moderate for outdoor static and outdoor walking predictions. No striking differences in performance were observed between the rule-based and the random forest models. The random forest model was fast and easy to execute, but was likely less robust than the rule-based model under the condition of biased or poor quality training data.Our models can successfully identify indoor and in-vehicle travel points from the raw GPS data, but challenges remain in developing models to distinguish outdoor static points and walking. Accurate training data are essential in developing reliable models in classifying time-activity patterns.

Dataset Information

Performance test and verification of an off-the-shelf automated avian radar tracking system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets