↓ Skip to main content

Small field dosimetry for the small animal radiotherapy research platform (SARRP)

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Small field dosimetry for the small animal radiotherapy research platform (SARRP)
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0936-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mihaela Ghita, Stephen J. McMahon, Hannah F. Thompson, Conor K. McGarry, Raymond King, Sarah O. S. Osman, Jonathan L. Kane, Amanda Tulk, Giuseppe Schettino, Karl T. Butterworth, Alan R. Hounsell, Kevin M. Prise

Abstract

Preclinical radiation biology has become increasingly sophisticated due to the implementation of advanced small animal image guided radiation platforms into laboratory investigation. These small animal radiotherapy devices enable state-of-the-art image guided therapy (IGRT) research to be performed by combining high-resolution cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging with an isocentric irradiation system. Such platforms are capable of replicating modern clinical systems similar to those that integrate a linear accelerator with on-board CBCT image guidance. In this study, we present a dosimetric evaluation of the small animal radiotherapy research platform (SARRP, Xstrahl Inc.) focusing on small field dosimetry. Physical dosimetry was assessed using ion chamber for calibration and radiochromic film, investigating the impact of beam focus size on the dose rate output as well as beam characteristics (beam shape and penumbra). Two film analysis tools) have been used to assess the dose output using the 0.5 mm diameter aperture. Good agreement (between 1.7-3%) was found between the measured physical doses and the data provided by Xstrahl for all apertures used. Furthermore, all small field dosimetry data are in good agreement for both film reading methods and with our Monte Carlo simulations for both focal spot sizes. Furthermore, the small focal spot has been shown to produce a more homogenous beam with more stable penumbra over time. FilmQA Pro is a suitable tool for small field dosimetry, with a sufficiently small sampling area (0.1 mm) to ensure an accurate measurement. The electron beam focus should be chosen with care as this can potentially impact on beam stability and reproducibility.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 19 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 26 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,429
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,004
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#25
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 441,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.