ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Variability of Dosiomics Features with Varying Prescribed Dose in Prostate Cancer.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Combining dosiomics and machine learning methods for predicting severe cardiac diseases in childhood cancer survivors: the French Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of dosiomic features under random interfractional error. We investigated the differences in the values of features with different fractions and the error in the values of dosiomic features under interfractional error. Material and Methods: The isocenters of the treatment plans of 15 lung cancer patients were translated by a maximum of ±3 mm in each axis with a mean of (0, 0, 0) and a standard deviation of (1.2, 1.2, 1.2) mm in the x, y, and z directions for each fraction. A total of 81 dose distributions for each patient were then calculated considering four fraction number groups (2, 10, 20, and 30). A total of 93 dosiomic features were extracted from each dose distribution in four different regions of interest (ROIs): gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), heart, and both lungs. The stability of dosiomic features was analyzed for each fraction number group by the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreements in the means of dosiomic features among the four fraction number groups were tested by ICC. The percent differences (PD) between the dosiomic features extracted from the original dose distribution and the dosiomic features extracted from the dose distribution with interfractional error were calculated. Results: Eleven out of 93 dosiomic features demonstrated a large CV (CV ≥ 20%). Overall CV values were highest in GTV ROIs and lowest in lung ROIs. The stability of dosiomic features decreased as the total number of fractions decreased. The ICC results showed that five out of 93 dosiomic features had an ICC lower than 0.75, which indicates intermediate or poor stability under interfractional error. The mean dosiomic feature values were shown to be consistent with different numbers of fractions (ICC ≥ 0.9). Some of the dosiomic features had PD greater than 50% and showed different PD values with different numbers of fractions. Conclusion: Some dosiomic features have low stability under interfractional error. The stability and values of the dosiomic features were affected by the total number of fractions. The effect of interfractional error on dosiomic features should be considered in further studies regarding dosiomics for reproducible results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.