↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols
Published in
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/acm2.12110
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This work quantified differences between recommendations of the TG-51 and TG-51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols. Reference dosimetry was performed for flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6, 10, 15, and 23 MV, as well as flattening-filter free (FFF) beam energies of 6 and 10 MV, following the recommendations of both the TG-51 and TG-51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer(®) ionization chamber and a scanning ionization chamber with calibration coefficients traceable to absorbed dose-to-water (Dw ) standards. Differences in Dw determined by the two protocols were 0.1%-0.3% for beam energies with a flattening filter, and up to 0.2% and 0.8% for FFF beams measured with the scanning and Farmer(®) ionization chambers, respectively, due to kQ determination, volume-averaging correction, and collimator jaw setting. Combined uncertainty was between 0.91% and 1.2% (k = 1), varying by protocol and detector.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 8 42%
Engineering 2 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,584,977
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#846
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,124
of 331,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#21
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 331,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.