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 |
CT-perfusion measurements in pancreatic carcinoma with different kinetic models: Is there a chance for tumour grading based on functional parameters?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Imaging, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40644-016-0100-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Schneeweiß, Marius Horger, Anja Grözinger, Konstantin Nikolaou, Dominik Ketelsen, Roland Syha, Gerd Grözinger |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the interchangeability of perfusion parameters obtained with help of models used for post-processing of perfusion-CT images in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and to determine the mean values and ranges of perfusion in different tumour gradings. Perfusion-CT imaging was performed prospectively in 48 consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In 42 patients biopsy-proven tumor grading was available (4 × G1/24 × G2/14 × G3/6× unknown). Images were post-processed using a model based on the maximum-slope (MS) approach (blood flow-BFMS) + Patlak analysis (P) (blood volume [BVP] and permeability [k-transP]), as well as a model with deconvolution-based (D) analysis (BFD, BVD and k-transD). 50 mL contrast agent were applied with a delay time of 7 s. Perfusion parameters were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test and Bland-Altman plots. Forty eight VOIs of tumours were outlined and analysed. Moderate to good ICC values were found for the perfusion parameters (ICC = 0.62-0.75). Wilcoxon matched-pairs revealed significantly lower values (P < .001 and 0.008), for the BF and BV values obtained using the maximum-slope approach + Patlak analysis compared to deconvolution based analysis. For k-trans measurement, deconvolution revealed significantly lower values (P < 0.001). Different histologic subgroups (G1-G3) did not show significantly different functional parameters. There were significant differences in the perfusion parameters obtained using the different calculation methods, and therefore these parameters are not directly interchangeable. However, the magnitude of pairs of parametric values is in constant relation to each other enabling the use of any of these methods. VPCT parameters did not allow for histologic classification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 25% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 54% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#269
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,699
of 421,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 421,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.