Akanksha Sharma

Dr. Akanksha Sharma


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2021 in Annals of Palliative Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASAkanksha Sharma
Akanksha Sharma
JGJerome J. Graber
Jerome J. Graber
Overview of prognostic factors in adult gliomas Akanksha Sharma, Jerome J. Graber

1 October 2019 in Clinical Breast Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMMaciej M. Mrugala
Maciej M. Mrugala
BKBryan Kim
Bryan Kim
ASAkanksha Sharma
Akanksha Sharma
NJNatalie Johnson
Natalie Johnson
CGCarrie Graham
Carrie Graham
JGJulie Gralow
Julie Gralow

28 February 2019 in American Journal of Neuroradiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LHL.S. Hu
L.S. Hu
HYH. Yoon
H. Yoon
JEJ.M. Eschbacher
J.M. Eschbacher
Leslie C. BaxterLeslie C. Baxter
Leslie C. Baxter
ADAmylou Dueck
Amylou Dueck
JLJing Li
Jing Li
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging–based modeling of tumor cell density can substantially improve targeted treatment of glioblastoma. Unfortunately, interpatient variability limits the predictive ability of many modeling approaches. We present a transfer learning method that generates individualized patient models, grounded in the wealth of population data, while also detecting and adjusting for interpatient variabilities based on each patient9s own histologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited patients with primary glioblastoma undergoing image-guided biopsies and preoperative imaging, including contrast-enhanced MR imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging, and diffusion tensor imaging. We calculated relative cerebral blood volume from DSC-MR imaging and mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy from DTI. Following image coregistration, we assessed tumor cell density for each biopsy and identified corresponding localized MR imaging measurements. We then explored a range of univariate and multivariate predictive models of tumor cell density based on MR imaging measurements in a generalized one-model-fits-all approach. We then implemented both univariate and multivariate individualized transfer learning predictive models, which harness the available population-level data but allow individual variability in their predictions. Finally, we compared Pearson correlation coefficients and mean absolute error between the individualized transfer learning and generalized one-model-fits-all models. RESULTS: Tumor cell density significantly correlated with relative CBV (r = 0.33, P < .001), and T1-weighted postcontrast (r = 0.36, P < .001) on univariate analysis after correcting for multiple comparisons. With single-variable modeling (using relative CBV), transfer learning increased predictive performance (r = 0.53, mean absolute error = 15.19%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.27, mean absolute error = 17.79%). With multivariate modeling, transfer learning further improved performance (r = 0.88, mean absolute error = 5.66%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.39, mean absolute error = 16.55%). CONCLUSIONS: Transfer learning significantly improves predictive modeling performance for quantifying tumor cell density in glioblastoma.

19 May 2022 in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ASAkanksha Sharma
Akanksha Sharma
JLJustin T. Low
Justin T. Low
PKPriya U. Kumthekar
Priya U. Kumthekar

22 February 2022 in Current Oncology Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RCRita Crooms
Rita Crooms
MJMargaret O Johnson
Margaret O Johnson
HLHeather E Leeper
Heather E Leeper
AMAmbereen Mehta
Ambereen Mehta
MMMichelle McWhirter
Michelle McWhirter
ASAkanksha Sharma
Akanksha Sharma

4 August 2020 in Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ASAkanksha Sharma
Akanksha Sharma
CMChristina R. Maxwell
Christina R. Maxwell
JFJill Farmer
Jill Farmer
DGDiana Greene-Chandos
Diana Greene-Chandos
KLKathrin LaFaver
Kathrin LaFaver
KBKarima Benameur
Karima Benameur
Objective To test the hypothesis that US neurologists were experiencing significant challenges with lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), rapid changes in practice, and varying institutional protocols, we conducted this survey study. The current coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused widespread disease and death. Rapid increases in patient volumes have exposed weaknesses in health care systems and challenged our ability to provide optimal patient care and adequate safety measures to health care workers (HCWs). Methods A 36-item survey was distributed to neurologists around the United States through various media platforms. Results Over a 1-week period, 567 responses were received. Of these, 56% practiced in academia. A total of 87% had access to PPE, with 45% being asked to reuse PPE due to shortages. The pandemic caused rapid changes in practice, most notably a shift toward providing care by teleneurology, although a third experienced challenges in transitioning to this model. Wide variations were noted both in testing and in the guidance provided for the exposed, sick, or vulnerable HCWs. Notably, 59% of respondents felt that their practices were doing what they could, although 56% did not feel safe taking care of patients. Conclusions Results from our survey demonstrate significant variability in preparedness and responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic in neurology, affected by region, health care setting, and practice model. Practice guidelines from professional societies and other national entities are needed to improve protection for physicians and their patients, promote recommended practice changes during a pandemic, and optimize future preparedness for public health emergencies.