↓ Skip to main content

Machine Learning and Radiogenomics: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Machine Learning and Radiogenomics: Lessons Learned and Future Directions
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00228
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kang, Tiziana Rancati, Sangkyu Lee, Jung Hun Oh, Sarah L. Kerns, Jacob G. Scott, Russell Schwartz, Seyoung Kim, Barry S. Rosenstein

Abstract

Due to the rapid increase in the availability of patient data, there is significant interest in precision medicine that could facilitate the development of a personalized treatment plan for each patient on an individual basis. Radiation oncology is particularly suited for predictive machine learning (ML) models due to the enormous amount of diagnostic data used as input and therapeutic data generated as output. An emerging field in precision radiation oncology that can take advantage of ML approaches is radiogenomics, which is the study of the impact of genomic variations on the sensitivity of normal and tumor tissue to radiation. Currently, patients undergoing radiotherapy are treated using uniform dose constraints specific to the tumor and surrounding normal tissues. This is suboptimal in many ways. First, the dose that can be delivered to the target volume may be insufficient for control but is constrained by the surrounding normal tissue, as dose escalation can lead to significant morbidity and rare. Second, two patients with nearly identical dose distributions can have substantially different acute and late toxicities, resulting in lengthy treatment breaks and suboptimal control, or chronic morbidities leading to poor quality of life. Despite significant advances in radiogenomics, the magnitude of the genetic contribution to radiation response far exceeds our current understanding of individual risk variants. In the field of genomics, ML methods are being used to extract harder-to-detect knowledge, but these methods have yet to fully penetrate radiogenomics. Hence, the goal of this publication is to provide an overview of ML as it applies to radiogenomics. We begin with a brief history of radiogenomics and its relationship to precision medicine. We then introduce ML and compare it to statistical hypothesis testing to reflect on shared lessons and to avoid common pitfalls. Current ML approaches to genome-wide association studies are examined. The application of ML specifically to radiogenomics is next presented. We end with important lessons for the proper integration of ML into radiogenomics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 42 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Computer Science 21 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 52 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,199,435
of 26,163,973 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#2,387
of 22,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,264
of 344,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#36
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,163,973 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,911 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 344,533 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.