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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of photon volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy, and intensity-modulated carbon ion therapy for delivery of hypo-fractionated thoracic radiotherapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-017-0866-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Chi, Lien-Chun Lin, Sijin Wen, Haijuan Yan, Wen-Chien Hsi |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present study was to compare the dose distribution generated from photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and intensity modulated carbon ion therapy (IMCIT) in the delivery of hypo-fractionated thoracic radiotherapy. Ten selected patients who underwent thoracic particle therapy between 2015 and 2016 were re-planned to receive a relative biological effectiveness (RBE) weighted dose of 60 Gy (i.e., GyE) in 15 fractions delivered with VMAT, IMPT, or IMCIT with the same optimization criteria. Treatment plans were then compared. There were no significant differences in target volume dose coverage or dose conformity, except improved D95 was found with IMCIT compared with VMAT (p = 0.01), and IMCIT was significantly better than IMPT in all target volume dose parameters. Particle therapy led to more prominent lung sparing at low doses, and this result was most prominent with IMCIT (p < 0.05). Improved sparing of other thoracic organs at risk (OARs) was observed with particle therapy, and IMCIT further lowered the D1cc and D5cc for major blood vessels, as compared with IMPT (p = 0.01). Although it was comparable to VMAT, IMCIT led to significantly better tumor target dose coverage and conformity than did IMPT. Particle therapy, compared with VMAT, improved thoracic OAR sparing. IMCIT, compared with IMPT, may further improve normal lung and major blood vessel sparing under limited respiratory motion. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 20 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,444,703
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,693
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,394
of 316,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#28
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 316,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.