↓ Skip to main content

NIH Workshop on Clinical Translation of Molecular Imaging Probes and Technology—Meeting Report

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Imaging and Biology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
NIH Workshop on Clinical Translation of Molecular Imaging Probes and Technology—Meeting Report
Published in
Molecular Imaging and Biology, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11307-014-0746-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina H. Liu, Antonio Sastre, Richard Conroy, Belinda Seto, Roderic I. Pettigrew

Abstract

A workshop on "Clinical Translation of Molecular Imaging Probes and Technology" was held August 2, 2013 in Bethesda, Maryland, organized and supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). This workshop brought together researchers, clinicians, representatives from pharmaceutical companies, molecular probe developers, and regulatory science experts. Attendees met to talk over current challenges in the discovery, validation, and translation of molecular imaging (MI) probes for key clinical applications. Participants also discussed potential strategies to address these challenges. The workshop consisted of 4 sessions, with 14 presentations and 2 panel discussions. Topics of discussion included (1) challenges and opportunities for clinical research and patient care, (2) advances in molecular probe design, (3) current approaches used by industry and pharmaceutical companies, and (4) clinical translation of MI probes. In the presentations and discussions, there were general agreement that while the barriers for validation and translation of MI probes remain high, there are pressing clinical needs and development opportunities for targets in cardiovascular, cancer, endocrine, neurological, and inflammatory diseases. The strengths of different imaging modalities, and the synergy of multimodality imaging, were highlighted. Participants also underscored the continuing need for close interactions and collaborations between academic and industrial partners, and federal agencies in the imaging probe development process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
China 1 3%
Unknown 26 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 14%
Engineering 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Computer Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#458
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,638
of 241,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 241,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.