↓ Skip to main content

Development of a standardized method for contouring the larynx and its substructures

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Development of a standardized method for contouring the larynx and its substructures
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0285-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mehee Choi, Tamer Refaat, Malisa S Lester, Ian Bacchus, Alfred W Rademaker, Bharat B Mittal

Abstract

ObjectivesLimiting radiation dose to the larynx can diminish effects of laryngeal dysfunction. However, no clear guidelines exist for defining the larynx and its substructures consistently on cross-sectional imaging. This study presents computed tomography (CT)- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based guidelines for contouring laryngeal organs-at-risk (OARs).Materials and MethodsStandardized guidelines for delineating laryngeal OARs were devised and used to delineate on CT and MRI for head-and-neck cancer patients. Volumetric comparisons were performed to evaluate consistency and reproducibility of guideline-based contours.ResultsFor the initial 5 patients the mean CT and MRI based larynx volume did not differ significantly between imaging modalities; 34.39¿±¿9.85 vs. 35.01¿±¿9.47 (p¿=¿.09). There was no statistical difference between the CT based mean laryngeal volume in the subsequent 44 patients compared to the initial 5 patients outlined on CT and the MRI scan (p¿=¿0.53 and 0.62). The OAR volume for laryngeal substructures were not statistically different among patients or between imaging modalities. Once established, the guidelines were easy to follow.ConclusionThe guidelines developed provide a precise method for delineating laryngeal OARs. These guidelines need to be validated and clinical significance of outlining laryngeal substructures and dose-volume constraints should be investigated before routine implementation in clinic practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 19%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 50%
Physics and Astronomy 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 March 2022.
All research outputs
#13,048,846
of 23,347,114 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#537
of 2,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,954
of 364,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#14
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,347,114 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,097 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 73% 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 364,259 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.