You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Methodology for analysis and reporting patterns of failure in the Era of IMRT: head and neck cancer applications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-016-0678-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abdallah S. R. Mohamed, David I. Rosenthal, Musaddiq J. Awan, Adam S. Garden, Esengul Kocak-Uzel, Abdelaziz M. Belal, Ahmed G. El-Gowily, Jack Phan, Beth M. Beadle, G. Brandon Gunn, Clifton D. Fuller |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to develop a methodology to standardize the analysis and reporting of the patterns of loco-regional failure after IMRT of head and neck cancer. Twenty-one patients with evidence of local and/or regional failure following IMRT for head-and-neck cancer were retrospectively reviewed under approved IRB protocol. Manually delineated recurrent gross disease (rGTV) on the diagnostic CT documenting recurrence (rCT) was co-registered with the original planning CT (pCT) using both deformable (DIR) and rigid (RIR) image registration software. Subsequently, mapped rGTVs were compared relative to original planning target volumes (TVs) and dose using a centroid-based approaches. Failures were then classified into five types based on combined spatial and dosimetric criteria; A (central high dose), B (peripheral high dose), C (central elective dose), D (peripheral elective dose), and E (extraneous dose). A total of 26 recurrences were identified. Using DIR, recurrences were assigned to more central TVs compared to RIR as detected using the spatial centroid-based method (p = 0.0002). rGTVs mapped using DIR had statistically significant higher mean doses when compared to rGTVs mapped rigidly (mean dose 70 vs. 69 Gy, p = 0.03). According to the proposed classification 22 out of 26 failures were of type A (central high dose) as assessed by DIR method compared to 18 out of 26 for the RIR because of the tendencey of RIR to assign failures more peripherally. RIR tends to assigns failures more peripherally. DIR-based methods showed that the vast majority of failures originated in the high dose target volumes and received full prescribed doses suggesting biological rather than technology-related causes of failure. Validated DIR-based registration is recommended for accurate failure characterization and a novel typology-indicative taxonomy is recommended for failure reporting in the IMRT era. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,227,929
of 25,218,929 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#190
of 2,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,381
of 375,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,218,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 375,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.