↓ Skip to main content

The roles of platelet-derived growth factors and their receptors in brain radiation necrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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.
Title
The roles of platelet-derived growth factors and their receptors in brain radiation necrosis
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-717x-9-51
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomo Miyata, Taichiro Toho, Naosuke Nonoguchi, Motomasa Furuse, Hiroko Kuwabara, Erina Yoritsune, Shinji Kawabata, Toshihiko Kuroiwa, Shin-Ichi Miyatake

Abstract

Brain radiation necrosis (RN) occurring after radiotherapy is a serious complication. We and others have performed several treatments for RN, using anticoagulants, corticosteroids, surgical resection and bevacizumab. However, the mechanisms underlying RN have not yet been completely elucidated. For more than a decade, platelet-derived growth factors (PDGFs) and their receptors (PDGFRs) have been extensively studied in many biological processes. These proteins influence a wide range of biological responses and participate in many normal and pathological conditions. In this study, we demonstrated that PDGF isoforms (PDGF-A, B, C, and D) and PDGFRs (PDGFR-α and β) are involved in the pathogenesis of human brain RN. We speculated on their roles, with a focus on their potential involvement in angiogenesis and inflammation in RN.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,131,475
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#270
of 2,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,430
of 313,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#8
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 313,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.