↓ Skip to main content

Objective consensus from decision trees

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Objective consensus from decision trees
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0270-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Martin Putora, Cedric M Panje, Alexandros Papachristofilou, Alan Dal Pra, Thomas Hundsberger, Ludwig Plasswilm

Abstract

BackgroundConsensus-based approaches provide an alternative to evidence-based decision making, especially in situations where high-level evidence is limited. Our aim was to demonstrate a novel source of information, objective consensus based on recommendations in decision tree format from multiple sources.MethodsBased on nine sample recommendations in decision tree format a representative analysis was performed. The most common (mode) recommendations for each eventuality (each permutation of parameters) were determined. The same procedure was applied to real clinical recommendations for primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Data was collected from 16 radiation oncology centres, converted into decision tree format and analyzed in order to determine the objective consensus.ResultsBased on information from multiple sources in decision tree format, treatment recommendations can be assessed for every parameter combination. An objective consensus can be determined by means of mode recommendations without compromise or confrontation among the parties. In the clinical example involving prostate cancer therapy, three parameters were used with two cut-off values each (Gleason score, PSA, T-stage) resulting in a total of 27 possible combinations per decision tree. Despite significant variations among the recommendations, a mode recommendation could be found for specific combinations of parameters.ConclusionRecommendations represented as decision trees can serve as a basis for objective consensus among multiple parties.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Other 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Engineering 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,177,805
of 23,420,064 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#363
of 2,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,686
of 363,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#9
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,420,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,100 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 363,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.