↓ Skip to main content

Development of an open source software module for enhanced visualization during MR-guided interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Development of an open source software module for enhanced visualization during MR-guided interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaojun Chen, Jan Egger

Abstract

In 2010, gynecologic malignancies were the 4th leading cause of death in U.S. women and for patients with extensive primary or recurrent disease, treatment with interstitial brachytherapy may be an option. However, brachytherapy requires precise insertion of hollow catheters with introducers into the tumor in order to eradicate the cancer. In this study, a software solution to assist interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy has been investigated and the software has been realized as an own module under (3D) Slicer, which is a free open source software platform for (translational) biomedical research. The developed research module allows on-time processing of intra-operative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) data over a direct DICOM connection to a MR scanner. Afterwards follows a multi-stage registration of CAD models of the medical brachytherapy devices (template, obturator) to the patient's MR images, enabling the virtual placement of interstitial needles to assist the physician during the intervention.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Netherlands 1 5%
Unknown 17 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Other 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Engineering 3 16%
Physics and Astronomy 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,637,600
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#326
of 1,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,010
of 226,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#10
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 226,159 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.