Difference between revisions of "2014 Project Week:QA module"
From NAMIC Wiki
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Project Description== | ==Project Description== | ||
| − | + | <div style="width: 100%;"> | |
<div style="margin: 20px;"> | <div style="margin: 20px;"> | ||
<div style="width: 27%; float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | <div style="width: 27%; float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | ||
<h3>Objective</h3> | <h3>Objective</h3> | ||
| − | * We have an automatic QA application that compares old experiment results with manual QA measures to new experiment results. For some comparisons, the automated QA application cannot determine the quality and needs manual intervention. The QA module needs to be updated s.t. only the undetermined images/regions are evaluated manually by our QA raters. | + | * We have an automatic QA application that compares old experiment results with manual QA measures to new experiment results. For some comparisons, the automated QA application cannot determine the quality and needs manual intervention. The SlicerQA module <ref>[https://github.com/BRAINSia/SlicerQAExtension.git QA module on Github]</ref> needs to be updated s.t. only the undetermined images/regions are evaluated manually by our QA raters. |
</div> | </div> | ||
<div style="width: 27%; float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | <div style="width: 27%; float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<h3>Progress</h3> | <h3>Progress</h3> | ||
* [COMPLETE] | * [COMPLETE] | ||
| + | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | |||
<div style="float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | <div style="float: left; padding-right: 3%;"> | ||
<h3>Source Code</h3> | <h3>Source Code</h3> | ||
| − | + | <references/> | |
</div> | </div> | ||
Latest revision as of 17:25, 10 January 2014
Home < 2014 Project Week:QA module
Key Investigators
- Iowa: Dave Welch, Hans Johnson
Project Description
Objective
- We have an automatic QA application that compares old experiment results with manual QA measures to new experiment results. For some comparisons, the automated QA application cannot determine the quality and needs manual intervention. The SlicerQA module [1] needs to be updated s.t. only the undetermined images/regions are evaluated manually by our QA raters.
Approach, Plan
- Update helper.py with new PostgreSQL commands
- Disable region/image buttons that have automated reviews
- Force QA comments on failing regions
Progress
- [COMPLETE]
