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 |
Clinical Indications for Carbon Ion Radiotherapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oncology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.clon.2018.01.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
O. Mohamad, S. Yamada, M. Durante |
| Abstract |
Compared with photon and proton therapy, carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) offers potentially superior dose distributions, which may permit dose escalation with the potential for improved sparing of adjacent normal tissues. CIRT has increased biological effectiveness leading to increased tumour killing compared with other radiation modalities. Here we review these biophysical properties and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current clinical evidence available for different tumour types treated with CIRT. We suggest that patient selection for CIRT should move away from the traditional viewpoint, which confines use to deep-seated hypoxic tumours that are adjacent to radiosensitive structures. A more integrated translational approach is required for the future as densely ionising C-ions elicit a distinct signal response pathway compared with sparsely ionising X-rays. This makes CIRT a biologically distinct treatment compared with conventional radiotherapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 11 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,391,140
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oncology
#484
of 2,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,539
of 339,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oncology
#3
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 339,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.