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 |
Comparison of objective criteria and expert visual interpretation to classify benign and malignant hilar and mediastinal nodes on 18‐F FDG PET/CT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respirology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/resp.12409 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phan Nguyen, Manoj Bhatt, Farzad Bashirzadeh, Justin Hundloe, Robert Ware, David Fielding, Aravind S. Ravi Kumar |
| Abstract |
There is widespread adoption of FDG-PET/CT in staging of lung cancer, but no universally accepted criteria for classifying thoracic nodes as malignant. Previous studies show high negative predictive values, but reporting criteria and positive predictive values varies. Using Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) results as gold standard, we evaluated objective FDG-PET/CT criteria for interpreting mediastinal and hilar nodes and compared this to expert visual interpretation (EVI). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 89% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,469,356
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Respirology
#1,929
of 2,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,029
of 257,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respirology
#32
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 257,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.