↓ Skip to main content

Neurocognitive sparing of desktop microbeam irradiation

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Neurocognitive sparing of desktop microbeam irradiation
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0864-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soha Bazyar, Christina R. Inscoe, Thad Benefield, Lei Zhang, Jianping Lu, Otto Zhou, Yueh Z. Lee

Abstract

Normal tissue toxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of radiotherapy. Spatial fractionation irradiation techniques, like microbeam radiotherapy (MRT), have shown promising results in sparing the normal brain tissue. Most MRT studies have been conducted at synchrotron facilities. With the aim to make this promising treatment more available, we have built the first desktop image-guided MRT device based on carbon nanotube x-ray technology. In the current study, our purpose was to evaluate the effects of MRT on the rodent normal brain tissue using our device and compare it with the effect of the integrated equivalent homogenous dose. Twenty-four, 8-week-old male C57BL/6 J mice were randomly assigned to three groups: MRT, broad-beam (BB) and sham. The hippocampal region was irradiated with two parallel microbeams in the MRT group (beam width = 300 μm, center-to-center = 900 μm, 160 kVp). The BB group received the equivalent integral dose in the same area of their brain. Rotarod, marble burying and open-field activity tests were done pre- and every month post-irradiation up until 8 months to evaluate the cognitive changes and potential irradiation side effects on normal brain tissue. The open-field activity test was substituted by Barnes maze test at 8th month. A multilevel model, random coefficients approach was used to evaluate the longitudinal and temporal differences among treatment groups. We found significant differences between BB group as compared to the microbeam-treated and sham mice in the number of buried marble and duration of the locomotion around the open-field arena than shams. Barnes maze revealed that BB mice had a lower capacity for spatial learning than MRT and shams. Mice in the BB group tend to gain weight at the slower pace than shams. No meaningful differences were found between MRT and sham up until 8-month follow-up using our measurements. Applying MRT with our newly developed prototype compact CNT-based image-guided MRT system utilizing the current irradiation protocol can better preserve the integrity of normal brain tissue. Consequently, it enables applying higher irradiation dose that promises better tumor control. Further studies are required to evaluate the full extent effects of this novel modality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 35%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,361,016
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#820
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,963
of 318,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#20
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 318,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.