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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How we read FCH-PET/CT for prostate cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Imaging, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40644-016-0101-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Mathieu Beauregard, Alexis Beaulieu |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade, (18)F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FCH-PET/CT) has gained in popularity for the staging and restaging of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). However, despite abundant literature on the topic, there is a lack of publications on how to actually interpret FCH-PET/CT in a clinical setting. Here we propose a practical, TNM-oriented approach to read FCH-PET/CT, with notes on procedure technique, image display, review sequence and report structure. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians and residents who are new to FCH-PET/CT, as well as to propose an alternate approach to more experienced physicians. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
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 27 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,754,036
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#78
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,778
of 420,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 420,276 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them