@article{LauraDrechslerErdtetal.2018, author = {Laura, C.O. and Drechsler, Klaus and Erdt, M. and Wesarg, S. and Bale, R.}, title = {Intervention assessment tool for primary tumors in the liver}, series = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, volume = {4}, journal = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2364-5504}, doi = {10.1515/cdbme-2018-0081}, pages = {337 -- 340}, year = {2018}, abstract = {After a liver tumor intervention the medical doctor has to compare both pre and postoperative CT acquisitions to ensure that all carcinogenic cells are destroyed. A correct assessment of the intervention is of vital importance, since it will reduce the probability of tumor recurrence. Some methods have been proposed to support the medical doctors during the assessment process, however, all of them focus on secondary tumors. In this paper a tool is presented that enables the outcome validation for both primary and secondary tumors. Therefore, a multiphase registration (preoperative arterial and portal phases) followed by a registration between the pre and postoperative CT images is carried out. The first registration is in charge of the primary tumors that are only visible in the arterial phase. The secondary tumors will be incorporated in the second registration step. Finally, the part of the tumor that was not covered by the necrosis is quantified and visualized. The method has been tested in 9 patients, with an average registration error of 1.41 mm.}, language = {en} } @article{EngelmannBuhlBaumannetal.2017, author = {Engelmann, Ulrich M. and Buhl, Eva Miriam and Baumann, Martin and Schmitz-Rode, Thomas and Slabu, Ioana}, title = {Agglomeration of magnetic nanoparticles and its effects on magnetic hyperthermia}, series = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, volume = {3}, journal = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, number = {2}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2364-5504}, doi = {10.1515/cdbme-2017-0096}, pages = {457 -- 460}, year = {2017}, language = {en} } @article{GrundlachBaumannEngelmann2021, author = {Grundlach, Michael and Baumann, Martin and Engelmann, Ulrich M.}, title = {How Multimodal Examinations Can Increase Sustainable Student Gain by Aligning Teaching and Assessment}, series = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, volume = {7}, journal = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, number = {7/2}, editor = {D{\"o}ssel, Olaf}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {2364-5504}, doi = {10.1515/cdbme-2021-2019}, pages = {73 -- 76}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Modern industry and multi-discipline projects require highly trained individuals with resilient science and engineering back-grounds. Graduates must be able to agilely apply excellent theoretical knowledge in their subject matter as well as essential practical "hands-on" knowledge of diverse working processes to solve complex problems. To meet these demands, university education follows the concept of Constructive Alignment and thus increasingly adopts the teaching of necessary practical skills to the actual industry requirements and assessment routines. However, a systematic approach to coherently align these three central teaching demands is strangely absent from current university curricula. We demonstrate the feasibility of implementing practical assessments in a regular theory-based examination, thus defining the term "blended assessment". We assessed a course for natural science and engineering students pursuing a career in biomedical engineering, and evaluated the benefit of blended assessment exams for students and lecturers. Our controlled study assessed the physiological background of electrocardiograms (ECGs), the practical measurement of ECG curves, and their interpretation of basic pathologic alterations. To study on long time effects, students have been assessed on the topic twice with a time lag of 6 months. Our findings suggest a significant improvement in student gain with respect to practical skills and theoretical knowledge. The results of the reassessments support these outcomes. From the lecturers' point of view, blended assessment complements practical training courses while keeping organizational effort manageable. We consider blended assessment a viable tool for providing an improved student gain, industry-ready education format that should be evaluated and established further to prepare university graduates optimally for their future careers.}, language = {en} } @article{GazdaMaurischat2020, author = {Gazda, Quentin and Maurischat, Andreas}, title = {Special functions and Gauss-Thakur sums in higher rank and dimension}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {26 Seiten}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{KetelhutGoellBraunsteinetal.2018, author = {Ketelhut, Maike and G{\"o}ll, Fabian and Braunstein, Bj{\"o}rn and Albracht, Kirsten and Abel, Dirk}, title = {Comparison of different training algorithms for the leg extension training with an industrial robot}, series = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, volume = {4}, journal = {Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2364-5504}, doi = {10.1515/cdbme-2018-0005}, pages = {17 -- 20}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In the past, different training scenarios have been developed and implemented on robotic research platforms, but no systematic analysis and comparison have been done so far. This paper deals with the comparison of an isokinematic (motion with constant velocity) and an isotonic (motion against constant weight) training algorithm. Both algorithms are designed for a robotic research platform consisting of a 3D force plate and a high payload industrial robot, which allows leg extension training with arbitrary six-dimensional motion trajectories. In the isokinematic as well as the isotonic training algorithm, individual paths are defined i n C artesian s pace by sufficient s upport p oses. I n t he i sotonic t raining s cenario, the trajectory is adapted to the measured force as the robot should only move along the trajectory as long as the force applied by the user exceeds a minimum threshold. In the isotonic training scenario however, the robot's acceleration is a function of the force applied by the user. To validate these findings, a simulative experiment with a simple linear trajectory is performed. For this purpose, the same force path is applied in both training scenarios. The results illustrate that the algorithms differ in the force dependent trajectory adaption.}, language = {en} }