Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update getGlobalInfluenceM.m #3

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

liotro78
Copy link

@liotro78 liotro78 commented May 1, 2015

This routine is buggy in the part executed when passing more than one structure in structsV.

Proposed changes:

  1. strBmletInd index should be used instead of structNum
  2. computing indexS = planC{end} was missing.
  3. influenceM = spalloc(numVoxels, numPBs, maxnnz), where numVoxels = prod(getUniformScanSize(planC{indexS.scan}(getStructureAssociatedScan(structsV(1))))) was missing.

BTW, this routine needs to be further debugged in the final part where the sparse influence matrix is populated (lines 86-117). Indeed, I observed unexpected discrepancies when computing the dose of "only one" ROI (i.e., using getSingleGlobalInfluenceM()) vs. extrapolating the very same ROI's dose from the global dose computed over more multiple ROIs.
These are very small discrepacies, which are not expected, I double checked the correct sampling rate was used on both tests.
Please debug and fix the cause. I am still investigating the cause.

P.S. could you accept my invitation to join the CERR google group (my email: alfonsoisola@gmail.com)?.

Regards, Alfonso

Regards.

liotro78 added 2 commits May 1, 2015 23:41
This routine is buggy in the part executed when passing more than one structure in structsV.

Proposed changes:
1) strBmletInd index should be used instead of structNum
2) computing indexS = planC{end} was missing.
3) influenceM = spalloc(numVoxels, numPBs, maxnnz), where numVoxels = prod(getUniformScanSize(planC{indexS.scan}(getStructureAssociatedScan(structsV(1))))) was missing.

BTW, this routine needs to be further debugged in the final part where the sparse influence matrix is populated.
Indeed, I observed unespected discrepancies when computing the dose of one ROI (using getSingleGlobalInfluenceM()) vs. extrapolating the very same ROI's dose from the global dose computed over more ROIs. 
These are very small discrepacies, which are not expected, I double checked the correct sampling rate was used on both tests.
Please debug and fix the cause. I am still investigating the cause.

P.S. could you accept my invitation to join the CERR google group (my email: alfonsoisola@gmail.com).

Regards, Alfonso

Regards.
Fixed a typo in the committed change. Sorry.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant