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

Low priority - cleaning up Winston Lutz analysis and units? #478

Open
ethanio12345 opened this issue Jan 16, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Low priority - cleaning up Winston Lutz analysis and units? #478

ethanio12345 opened this issue Jan 16, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@ethanio12345
Copy link
Contributor

Inconsistent use of where units are printed in the Winston Lutz results. Below represents some results for my exam prep in testing how sensitive various QA tests are with bad setups, so these aren't clinical results. :P

Mean 2D CAX->BB distance: 0.70mm
Maximum Gantry RMS deviation (mm): 0.87mm
Maximum Couch RMS deviation (mm): 1.19

So, we have three different conventions where the units are (units in/not in description and units in/not in results). Is there a particular convention wanted to make it consistent? I.e. units only in results or description or units in both? I know this will be low priority, but would be a fairly quick/easy fix, in changing the relevant f-strings, and I'd be happy to make another commit.

@jrkerns
Copy link
Owner

jrkerns commented Jan 16, 2024

Hmm. Good question. I never really paid attention and clearly didn't think about it too much. It was probably based on what I had for lunch any given day. I don't much have a preference; however, in RadMachine we represent things as " label : value " so from that perspective the rubric " label (unit): value " would match that pretty well I think.

image

Edit: GH hates brackets apparently

@ethanio12345
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hahaha, as I said, low priority issue, and not one which impacts actual results (which is the important part). I'll try and get a pull request ready on lunch break today following "label (unit): value"...if not, I'll probably forget. Thanks James.

jrkerns added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2024
…478)

RAM-4172 don't enforce gamma x-domain restrictions.

Approved-by: Randy Taylor
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants