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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The effect of extremely narrow MLC leaf width on the plan quality of VMAT for prostate cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-016-0664-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jong Min Park, So-Yeon Park, Jin Ho Kim, Joel Carlson, Jung-in Kim |
| Abstract |
To investigate the effect of multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) with leaf width of 1.25 mm on the plan quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. A total of 20 patients with prostate cancer were retrospectively selected. Using a high definition MLC (HD MLC), primary and boost VMAT plans with two full arcs were generated for each patient (original plan). After that, by shifting the isocenter position of the 2nd arc by 1.25 mm in the cranio-caudal direction, we simulated fluences made with MLCs with leaf width of 1.25 mm. After shifting, primary and boost plans were generated for each patient (shifted plan). A sum plan was generated by summation of the primary and boost plan for each patient. Dose-volumetric parameters were calculated and compared. Both the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the shifted plans were better than those of the original plans in primary plans (HI = 0.065 vs. 0.059 with p < 0.001 and CI = 1.056 vs. 1.044 with p = 0.006). Similarly, the shifted plans for the boost target volume showed better homogeneity and conformity than did the original plans (HI = 0.060 vs. 0.053 with p < 0.001 and CI = 1.015 vs. 1.009 with p < 0.001). The target mean dose of the original plans was closer to the prescription dose than that of the shifted plans in the case of sum plans (81.45 Gy vs. 81.12 Gy with p = 0.001). Use of extremely narrow MLCs could increase dose homogeneity and conformity of the target volume for prostate VMAT. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,415
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,582
of 352,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#20
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 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 2,060 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 352,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.