↓ Skip to main content

Multiple comparisons permutation test for image based data mining in radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
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.
Title
Multiple comparisons permutation test for image based data mining in radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-717x-8-293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun Chen, Marnix Witte, Wilma Heemsbergen, Marcel van Herk

Abstract

: Comparing incidental dose distributions (i.e. images) of patients with different outcomes is a straightforward way to explore dose-response hypotheses in radiotherapy. In this paper, we introduced a permutation test that compares images, such as dose distributions from radiotherapy, while tackling the multiple comparisons problem. A test statistic Tmax was proposed that summarizes the differences between the images into a single value and a permutation procedure was employed to compute the adjusted p-value. We demonstrated the method in two retrospective studies: a prostate study that relates 3D dose distributions to failure, and an esophagus study that relates 2D surface dose distributions of the esophagus to acute esophagus toxicity. As a result, we were able to identify suspicious regions that are significantly associated with failure (prostate study) or toxicity (esophagus study). Permutation testing allows direct comparison of images from different patient categories and is a useful tool for data mining in radiotherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 89 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 25%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Physics and Astronomy 13 14%
Engineering 8 9%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,186,260
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#805
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,334
of 306,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#27
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 306,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.