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 |
Functional lung avoidance for individualized radiotherapy (FLAIR): study protocol for a randomized, double-blind clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2407-14-934 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas A Hoover, Dante PI Capaldi, Khadija Sheikh, David A Palma, George B Rodrigues, A Rashid Dar, Edward Yu, Brian Dingle, Mark Landis, Walter Kocha, Michael Sanatani, Mark Vincent, Jawaid Younus, Sara Kuruvilla, Stewart Gaede, Grace Parraga, Brian P Yaremko |
| Abstract |
Although radiotherapy is a key component of curative-intent treatment for locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it can be associated with substantial pulmonary toxicity in some patients. Current radiotherapy planning techniques aim to minimize the radiation dose to the lungs, without accounting for regional variations in lung function. Many patients, particularly smokers, can have substantial regional differences in pulmonary ventilation patterns, and it has been hypothesized that preferential avoidance of functional lung during radiotherapy may reduce toxicity. Although several investigators have shown that functional lung can be identified using advanced imaging techniques and/or demonstrated the feasibility and theoretical advantages of avoiding functional lung during radiotherapy, to our knowledge this premise has never been tested via a prospective randomized clinical trial. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,168,445
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,001
of 8,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,103
of 361,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#24
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 361,188 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.