↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of measurement methods with a mixed effects procedure accounting for replicated evaluations (COM3PARE): method comparison algorithm implementation for head and neck IGRT positional…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparison of measurement methods with a mixed effects procedure accounting for replicated evaluations (COM3PARE): method comparison algorithm implementation for head and neck IGRT positional verification
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12880-015-0074-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anuradha Roy, Clifton D. Fuller, David I. Rosenthal, Charles R. Thomas

Abstract

Comparison of imaging measurement devices in the absence of a gold-standard comparator remains a vexing problem; especially in scenarios where multiple, non-paired, replicated measurements occur, as in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). As the number of commercially available IGRT presents a challenge to determine whether different IGRT methods may be used interchangeably, an unmet need conceptually parsimonious and statistically robust method to evaluate the agreement between two methods with replicated observations. Consequently, we sought to determine, using an previously reported head and neck positional verification dataset, the feasibility and utility of a Comparison of Measurement Methods with the Mixed Effects Procedure Accounting for Replicated Evaluations (COM3PARE), a unified conceptual schema and analytic algorithm based upon Roy's linear mixed effects (LME) model with Kronecker product covariance structure in a doubly multivariate set-up, for IGRT method comparison. An anonymized dataset consisting of 100 paired coordinate (X/ measurements from a sequential series of head and neck cancer patients imaged near-simultaneously with cone beam CT (CBCT) and kilovoltage X-ray (KVX) imaging was used for model implementation. Software-suggested CBCT and KVX shifts for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions were evaluated for bias, inter-method (between-subject variation), intra-method (within-subject variation), and overall agreement using with a script implementing COM3PARE with the MIXED procedure of the statistical software package SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). COM3PARE showed statistically significant bias agreement and difference in inter-method between CBCT and KVX was observed in the Z-axis (both p - value<0.01). Intra-method and overall agreement differences were noted as statistically significant for both the X- and Z-axes (all p - value<0.01). Using pre-specified criteria, based on intra-method agreement, CBCT was deemed preferable for X-axis positional verification, with KVX preferred for superoinferior alignment. The COM3PARE methodology was validated as feasible and useful in this pilot head and neck cancer positional verification dataset. COM3PARE represents a flexible and robust standardized analytic methodology for IGRT comparison. The implemented SAS script is included to encourage other groups to implement COM3PARE in other anatomic sites or IGRT platforms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Physics and Astronomy 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 32%

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 28 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,945,261
of 5,560,729 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#116
of 198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,632
of 194,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,560,729 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 198 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 194,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.