↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 75

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, September 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

10 patents
1 Wikipedia page


406 Dimensions

Readers on

454 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 75
Published in
Medical Physics, September 2007
DOI 10.1118/1.2775667
Pubmed ID

Martin J. Murphy, James Balter, Stephen Balter, Jose A. BenComo, Indra J. Das, Steve B. Jiang, C.-M. Ma, Gustavo H. Olivera, Raymond F. Rodebaugh, Kenneth J. Ruchala, Hiroki Shirato, Fang-Fang Yin


Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm for patient positioning, target localization, and external beam alignment in radiotherapy. Although widely varied in modality and method, all radiographic guidance techniques have one thing in common--they can give a significant radiation dose to the patient. As with all medical uses of ionizing radiation, the general view is that this exposure should be carefully managed. The philosophy for dose management adopted by the diagnostic imaging community is summarized by the acronym ALARA, i.e., as low as reasonably achievable. But unlike the general situation with diagnostic imaging and image-guided surgery, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) adds the imaging dose to an already high level of therapeutic radiation. There is furthermore an interplay between increased imaging and improved therapeutic dose conformity that suggests the possibility of optimizing rather than simply minimizing the imaging dose. For this reason, the management of imaging dose during radiotherapy is a different problem than its management during routine diagnostic or image-guided surgical procedures. The imaging dose received as part of a radiotherapy treatment has long been regarded as negligible and thus has been quantified in a fairly loose manner. On the other hand, radiation oncologists examine the therapy dose distribution in minute detail. The introduction of more intensive imaging procedures for IGRT now obligates the clinician to evaluate therapeutic and imaging doses in a more balanced manner. This task group is charged with addressing the issue of radiation dose delivered via image guidance techniques during radiotherapy. The group has developed this charge into three objectives: (1) Compile an overview of image-guidance techniques and their associated radiation dose levels, to provide the clinician using a particular set of image guidance techniques with enough data to estimate the total diagnostic dose for a specific treatment scenario, (2) identify ways to reduce the total imaging dose without sacrificing essential imaging information, and (3) recommend optimization strategies to trade off imaging dose with improvements in therapeutic dose delivery. The end goal is to enable the design of image guidance regimens that are as effective and efficient as possible.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 7 2%
Spain 6 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 425 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 92 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 16%
Other 69 15%
Student > Master 64 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 30 7%
Other 82 18%
Unknown 43 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 205 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 116 26%
Engineering 27 6%
Computer Science 11 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 2%
Other 16 4%
Unknown 69 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 January 2021.
All research outputs
of 18,382,898 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
of 6,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 356,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,382,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,907 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 356,373 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 97% of its contemporaries.