| Title |
Cancer risk assessment in modern radiotherapy workflow with medical big data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s164980 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fu Jin, Huan-Li Luo, Juan Zhou, Ya-Nan He, Xian-Feng Liu, Ming-Song Zhong, Han Yang, Chao Li, Qi-Cheng Li, Xia Huang, Xiu-Mei Tian, Da Qiu, Guang-Lei He, Li Yin, Ying Wang |
| Abstract |
Modern radiotherapy (RT) is being enriched by big digital data and intensive technology. Multimodality image registration, intelligence-guided planning, real-time tracking, image-guided RT (IGRT), and automatic follow-up surveys are the products of the digital era. Enormous digital data are created in the process of treatment, including benefits and risks. Generally, decision making in RT tries to balance these two aspects, which is based on the archival and retrieving of data from various platforms. However, modern risk-based analysis shows that many errors that occur in radiation oncology are due to failures in workflow. These errors can lead to imbalance between benefits and risks. In addition, the exact mechanism and dose-response relationship for radiation-induced malignancy are not well understood. The cancer risk in modern RT workflow continues to be a problem. Therefore, in this review, we develop risk assessments based on our current knowledge of IGRT and provide strategies for cancer risk reduction. Artificial intelligence (AI) such as machine learning is also discussed because big data are transforming RT via AI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Engineering | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,845,628
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#87
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,513
of 330,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#3
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 330,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.