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 |
Would you bet on PET?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/1754-9485.12330 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Syed N Zaheer, Justin M Whitley, Paul A Thomas, Karin Steinke |
| Abstract |
Fluodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging is an acknowledged modality for the follow-up of solid tumours treated with thermal ablation, with persistent or new FDG uptake at the ablation site considered to be a reliable indicator of local recurrence. Several cases of proven false-positive FDG-PET scans are illustrated in this pictorial essay with uptake at the site of the ablated tumour, remote from the ablated lesion and in mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Positive FDG-PET scans post-thermal ablation of lung tumours therefore cannot always reliably predict local tumour recurrence or nodal spread. It is important to be familiar with FDG uptake patterns post-ablation and their significance. FDG-PET avid lesions post-ablation may require histological confirmation before further therapy is planned or management is changed. |
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 States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 33% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 44% |
| Psychology | 1 | 11% |
| Engineering | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#810
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,466
of 281,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 281,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.