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 |
Shining dead bone—cause for cautious interpretation of [18F]NaF PET scans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Orthopaedica, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1080/17453674.2017.1372097 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Magnus Bernhardsson, Olof Sandberg, Marcus Ressner, Jacek Koziorowski, Jonas Malmquist, Per Aspenberg |
| Abstract |
Background and purpose - [(18)F]Fluoride ([(18)F]NaF) PET scan is frequently used for estimation of bone healing rate and extent in cases of bone allografting and fracture healing. Some authors claim that [(18)F]NaF uptake is a measure of osteoblastic activity, calcium metabolism, or bone turnover. Based on the known affinity of fluoride to hydroxyapatite, we challenged this view. Methods - 10 male rats received crushed, frozen allogeneic cortical bone fragments in a pouch in the abdominal wall on the right side, and hydroxyapatite granules on left side. [(18)F]NaF was injected intravenously after 7 days. 60 minutes later, the rats were killed and [(18)F]NaF uptake was visualized in a PET/CT scanner. Specimens were retrieved for micro CT and histology. Results - MicroCT and histology showed no signs of new bone at the implant sites. Still, the implants showed a very high [(18)F]NaF uptake, on a par with the most actively growing and remodeling sites around the knee joint. Interpretation - [(18)F]NaF binds with high affinity to dead bone and calcium phosphate materials. Hence, an [(18)F]NaF PET/CT scan does not allow for sound conclusions about new bone ingrowth into bone allograft, healing activity in long bone shaft fractures with necrotic fragments, or remodeling around calcium phosphate coated prostheses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 32% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Acta Orthopaedica
#735
of 889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,690
of 316,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Orthopaedica
#21
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 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 889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 316,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.