Hormesis Podcast #4 - Radiomics: How to (maybe) classify your future

Alison (radiomics skeptic) and Nick (radiomics hopeful) sit down to discuss the benefits, drawbacks, and potential of radiomics. A variety of papers were discussed and can be found below. We also briefly discussed (though we did try not to) deep learning and broader AI applications. 

Are you a radiomics optimist or pessimist? Tell us at https://www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast/comments/ct6p1q/episode_4_radiomics_how_to_maybe_classify_your/.

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or through the RSS Feed.


[1] Philippe Lambin, Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez, Ralph Leijenaar, Sara Carvalho, Ruud G.P.M. van Stiphout, Patrick Granton, Catharina M.L. Zegers, Robert Gillies, Ronald Boellard, Andre ́ Dekker, and Hugo J.W.L. Aerts. “Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis.” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 48: 441-446. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036].

[2] Afsaneh Jalalian, Syamsiah Mashohor, Rozi Mahmud, Babak Karasfi, M. Iqbal B. Saripan, and Abdul Rahman B. Ramli. “Foundation and Methodologies in Computer-Aided Diagnosis Systems for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.” EXCLI Journal, vol. 16:113-137. [DOI: 10.17179/excli2016-701].

[3] Virendra Kumar, Yuhua Gu, Satrajit Basu, Anders Berglund, Steven A. Eschrich, Matthew B. Schabath, Kenneth Forster, Hugo J.W.L. Aertsf, Andre Dekkerf, David Fenstermacher, Dmitry B. Goldgof, Lawrence O. Hall, Philippe Lambin, Yoganand Balagurunathan, Robert A. Gatenby, and Robert J. Gillies. “Radiomics: the process and the challenges.” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 30: 1234-1248. [DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010]

[4] Sunderland and Christian. “Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom.” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 56: 145-152. [DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.148056].

[5] Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin.  “Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier.” Association for Computing Machinery. [DOI: 10.1145/2939672.2939778].

[6] Brijesh Verma, Peter McLeod, and Alan Klevansky. “Classification of benign and malignant patterns in digital mammograms for the diagnosis of breast cancer.” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 37: 3344-3351. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.10.016].

[7] David L Raunig, Lisa M McShane, Gene Pennello, Constantine Gatsonis, Paul L Carson, James T Voyvodic, Richard L Wahl, Brenda F Kurland, Adam J Schwarz, Mithat Gönen, Gudrun Zahlmann, Marina Kondratovich, Kevin O'Donnell, Nicholas Petrick, Patricia E Cole, Brian Garra, Daniel C Sullivan and QIBA Technical Performance Working Group. “Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: A Review of Statistical Methods for Technical Performance Assessment.” Stat Methods Med Res, vol. 0, 1-41. [DOI: 10.1177/0962280214537344].

[8] Christie Lin, StephanieHarmon, Tyler Bradshaw, Jens Eickhoff, Scott Perlman, Glenn Liu, and RobertJeraj. “Response-to-repeatability of quantitative imaging features for longitudinal response assessment.” Physics in Medicine & Biology, 64. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aafa0a].

[9] D. Karunanithi, Omar Alheyasat, Divya Thomas, and G. Kavitha. “Attacks on Artificial Intelligence Applications through Adversarial Image.” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 118: 4491-4495.

Hormesis Podcast #3 - The Definition of Insanity...and TG-218

[download link]

In this Episode, Andrea and Sean discuss the report from AAPM TG-218, “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA.” They review some of the TG Report, the report recommendations, and the background of IMRT QA. The hosts share their thoughts and experiences on the IMRT QA process and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Have any questions or comments? Talk to us at https://www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast/comments/cgsys3/episode_3_the_definition_of_insanityand_tg218/

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or through the RSS Feed.

  1. Miften et al. “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM TG-218.” Med Phys. 45(4). 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.12810]

  2. Low et al. “Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT.” Med Phys. 38(3). 2011. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3514120]

  3. Ezzel et al. “IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparison, a report of AAPM TG-119.” Med Phys. 36(11). 2009. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3238104]

  4. Nelms et al. “Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.” Med Phys. 38(2). 2011. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3544657]

Hormesis Podcast #2 - Medical Physics 3.0

[download link]

Hormesis Podcast #2 - Medical Physics 3.0 - Where do we want to go?

In this episode, co-hosts Andrea and Nick talk about the implementation of medical physics 3.0, what it means for the medical physicist, why it is necessary and ways you can implement some of the ideas in your clinic. Join Andrea and Nick for a discussion about the necessity, purpose of this movement. 

Have any questions or comments? Talk to us at https://www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast/comments/cauxzz/hormesis_podcast_2_medical_physics_30_where_do_we/

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or through the RSS Feed.

[1] Medical Physics 3.0, AAPM https://w3.aapm.org/medphys30/index.php

[2] Samei, E. , Pawlicki, T. , Bourland, D. , Chin, E. , Das, S. , Fox, M. , Freedman, D. J., Hangiandreou, N. , Jordan, D. , Martin, M. , Miller, R. , Pavlicek, W. , Pavord, D. , Schober, L. , Thomadsen, B. and Whelan, B. (2018), “Redefining and reinvigorating the role of physics in clinical medicine: A Report from the AAPM Medical Physics 3.0 Ad Hoc Committee.” Med. Phys., vol. 45: 783-789. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13087]

[3] Samei, Ehsan, and Michael D Mills. “Medical Physics 3.0, physics for every patient.” Journal of applied clinical medical physics vol. 19,6 4-5. 19 Oct. 2018, [doi:10.1002/acm2.12484]

Hormesis Podcast #1 - End of the medical physics residency crunch?

[download link]

In this episode, co-hosts Sean and Alison discuss whether the number of residency spots is appropriate for the demand of medical physicists in today’s market. This episode was sparked by the recent AAPM newsletter article [1], a MEDPHYS ad for a residency that charges tuition (April 1, 2019), the document that started it all: the 2010 Career Model [2], and more [3-5].

Have any questions or comments? Talk to us at https://www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast/comments/c8wv0t/episode_1_end_of_the_medical_physics_residency/.

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or through the RSS Feed.

[1] Dobbins, Jim. “Education Council’s Report.” AAPM Newsletter, Volume 44 No. 2, March 2019. https://w3.aapm.org/newsletter/posts/2019/mar-apr/

[2] AAPM Professional Council. “Workforce Study and Professional Survey Validation.” April 14, 2011. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/studies.asp

[3] AAPM. “Professional Survey Report Calendar Year 2017.” https://www.aapm.org/pubs/protected_files/surveys/AAPM-Salary17.pdf

[4] A variety of other salary surveys were also discussed and can be found at the AAPM site here: https://www.aapm.org/pubs/surveys.asp.

[5] Clark, B. “CAMPEP Graduate Program Report.” 2017 AAPM Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN. http://campep.org/2017AnnualGraduateReport.pdf

Introduction to the Hormesis Podcast

[download link]

A little over a year ago Alison Roth received an e-mail from Sean Tanny asking whether she would be interested in starting a podcast talking about medical physics. It was timely as Alison was struggling with her PhD work (in medical physics of course) and reading a book - Radium Girls - about dial painters in radium watch factories. Needless to say, Alison was overwhelmed at the time and busy, but as her life seems to revolve around medical physics, she said, “yes, of course, we need a podcast.” After a few e-mails and phone calls the project was put on the backburner until Sean approached Andrea Herrick and Nicholas Sperling and two became four. A year later, our initial idea has become reality in Hormesis Podcast.

With our variety of experience, we strive to cover topics of interest to all sorts of different physicists from students to clinical and non-clinical physicists. Early episodes include whether or not there are enough residency slots (Is the Residency Crunch at an End?), IMRT QA (The Definition of Insanity...and TG-218), Radiomics, and, of course, Radium Girls by Kate Moore.

Join the conversation at www.reddit.com/r/HormesisPodcast. Topics can be suggested here.