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 |
Is it possible for knowledge-based planning to improve intensity modulated radiation therapy plan quality for planners with different planning experiences in left-sided breast cancer patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-017-0822-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juanqi Wang, Weigang Hu, Zhaozhi Yang, Xiaohui Chen, Zhiqiang Wu, Xiaoli Yu, Xiaomao Guo, Saiquan Lu, Kaixuan Li, Gongyi Yu |
| Abstract |
Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a promising technique that can improve plan quality and increase planning efficiency. However, no attempts have been made to extend the domain of KBP for planners with different planning experiences so far. The purpose of this study was to quantify the potential gains for planners with different planning experiences after implementing KBP in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for left-sided breast cancer patients. The model libraries were populated with 80 expert clinical plans from treated patients who previously received left-sided breast-conserving surgery and IMRT with simultaneously integrated boost. The libraries were created on the RapidPlan(TM). 6 planners with different planning experiences (2 beginner planners, 2 junior planners and 2 senior planners) generated manual and KBP optimized plans for additional 10 patients, similar to those included in the model libraries. The plan qualities were compared between manual and KBP plans. All plans were capable of achieving the prescription requirement. There were almost no statistically significant differences in terms of the planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose conformality. It was demonstrated that the doses for most of organs-at-risk (OARs) were on average lower or equal in KBP plans compared to manual plans except for the senior planners, where the very small differences were not statistically significant. KBP data showed a systematic trend to have superior dose sparing at most parameters for the heart and ipsilateral lung. The observed decrease in the doses to these OARs could be achieved, particularly for the beginner and junior planners. Many differences were statistically significant. It is feasible to generate acceptable IMRT plans after implementing KBP for left-sided breast cancer. KBP helps to effectively improve the quality of IMRT plans against the benchmark of manual plans for less experienced planners without any manual intervention. KBP showed promise for homogenizing the plan quality by transferring planning expertise from more experienced to less experienced planners. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 17 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 20% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,428
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,047
of 313,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.