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 |
Comparison of dose calculations between pencil-beam and Monte Carlo algorithms of the iPlan RT in arc therapy using a homogenous phantom with 3DVH software
|
---|---|
Published in |
Radiation Oncology, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-717x-8-284 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jin Ho Song, Hun-Joo Shin, Chul Seung Kay, Soo-Min Chae, Seok Hyun Son |
Abstract |
To create an arc therapy plan, certain current general calculation algorithms such as pencil-beam calculation (PBC) are based on discretizing the continuous arc into multiple fields to simulate an arc. The iPlan RT™ treatment planning system incorporates not only a PBC algorithm, but also a more recent Monte Carlo calculation (MCC) algorithm that does not need beam discretization. The objective of this study is to evaluate the dose differences in a homogenous phantom between PBC and MCC by using a three-dimensional (3D) diode array detector (ArcCHECK™) and 3DVH software. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Latvia | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
Other | 3 | 16% |
Unknown | 3 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 32% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 21% |
Engineering | 2 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
Other | 2 | 11% |
Unknown | 3 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,288,160
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,040
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,380
of 306,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#31
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 306,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.