↓ Skip to main content

An Ensemble Approach to Knowledge-Based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
An Ensemble Approach to Knowledge-Based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiahan Zhang, Q. Jackie Wu, Tianyi Xie, Yang Sheng, Fang-Fang Yin, Yaorong Ge

Abstract

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) utilizes experienced planners' knowledge embedded in prior plans to estimate optimal achievable dose volume histogram (DVH) of new cases. In the regression-based KBP framework, previously planned patients' anatomical features and DVHs are extracted, and prior knowledge is summarized as the regression coefficients that transform features to organ-at-risk DVH predictions. In our study, we find that in different settings, different regression methods work better. To improve the robustness of KBP models, we propose an ensemble method that combines the strengths of various linear regression models, including stepwise, lasso, elastic net, and ridge regression. In the ensemble approach, we first obtain individual model prediction metadata using in-training-set leave-one-out cross validation. A constrained optimization is subsequently performed to decide individual model weights. The metadata is also used to filter out impactful training set outliers. We evaluate our method on a fresh set of retrospectively retrieved anonymized prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) cases and head and neck IMRT cases. The proposed approach is more robust against small training set size, wrongly labeled cases, and dosimetric inferior plans, compared with other individual models. In summary, we believe the improved robustness makes the proposed method more suitable for clinical settings than individual models.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Engineering 6 15%
Physics and Astronomy 5 13%
Computer Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,328
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,141
of 348,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#74
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 348,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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.