↓ Skip to main content

Accelerated iterative beam angle selection in IMRT

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, February 2016
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
10 patents

Readers on

mendeley
21 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.
Article details
Title
Accelerated iterative beam angle selection in IMRT
Published in
Medical Physics, February 2016
DOI 10.1118/1.4940350
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Iterative methods for beam angle selection (BAS) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning sequentially construct a beneficial ensemble of beam directions. In a naïve implementation, the nth beam is selected by adding beam orientations one-by-one from a discrete set of candidates to an existing ensemble of (n - 1) beams. The best beam orientation is identified in a time consuming process by solving the fluence map optimization (FMO) problem for every candidate beam and selecting the beam that yields the largest improvement to the objective function value. This paper evaluates two alternative methods to accelerate iterative BAS based on surrogates for the FMO objective function value. We suggest to select candidate beams not based on the FMO objective function value after convergence but (1) based on the objective function value after five FMO iterations of a gradient based algorithm and (2) based on a projected gradient of the FMO problem in the first iteration. The performance of the objective function surrogates is evaluated based on the resulting objective function values and dose statistics in a treatment planning study comprising three intracranial, three pancreas, and three prostate cases. Furthermore, iterative BAS is evaluated for an application in which a small number of noncoplanar beams complement a set of coplanar beam orientations. This scenario is of practical interest as noncoplanar setups may require additional attention of the treatment personnel for every couch rotation. Iterative BAS relying on objective function surrogates yields similar results compared to naïve BAS with regard to the objective function values and dose statistics. At the same time, early stopping of the FMO and using the projected gradient during the first iteration enable reductions in computation time by approximately one to two orders of magnitude. With regard to the clinical delivery of noncoplanar IMRT treatments, we could show that optimized beam ensembles using only a few noncoplanar beam orientations often approach the plan quality of fully noncoplanar ensembles. We conclude that iterative BAS in combination with objective function surrogates can be a viable option to implement automated BAS at clinically acceptable computation times.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 4 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Mathematics 2 10%
Engineering 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 38%
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 04 August 2026.
All research outputs
#6,880,619
of 23,053,169 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#1,715
of 7,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,175
of 398,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#28
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,053,169 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,722 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 398,195 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 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.