↓ Skip to main content

Use of dMLC for implementation of dynamic respiratory‐gated radiation therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Use of dMLC for implementation of dynamic respiratory‐gated radiation therapy
Published in
Medical Physics, September 2013
DOI 10.1118/1.4820534
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To simulate and evaluate the use of dynamic multileaf collimators (dMLC) in respiratory gating to compensate for baseline drift. Tumor motion tracking data from 30 lung tumors over 322 treatment fractions was analyzed with the finite state model. A dynamic respiratory gating window was established in real-time by determining the average positions during the previous two end-of-expiration breathing phases and centering the dMLC aperture on a weighted average of these positions. A simulated dMLC with physical motion constraints was used in dynamic gating treatment simulations. Fluence maps were created to provide a statistical description of radiation delivery for each fraction. Duty cycle was also calculated for each fraction. The average duty cycle was 2.3% greater under dynamic gating conditions. Dynamic gating also showed higher fluences and less tumor obstruction. Additionally, dynamic gating required fewer beam toggles and each delivery period was longer on average than with static gating. The use of dynamic gating showed better performance than static gating and the physical constraints of a dMLC were shown to not be an impediment to dynamic gating.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 43%
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Physics and Astronomy 3 21%
Psychology 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,626,022
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,361
of 7,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,476
of 202,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#36
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 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 7,872 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 202,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.