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 |
Standardized treatment planning methodology for passively scattered proton craniospinal irradiation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-717x-8-32 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annelise Giebeler, Wayne D Newhauser, Richard A Amos, Anita Mahajan, Kenneth Homann, Rebecca M Howell |
| Abstract |
As the number of proton therapy centers increases, so does the need for studies which compare proton treatments between institutions and with photon therapy. However, results of such studies are highly dependent on target volume definition and treatment planning techniques. Thus, standardized methods of treatment planning are needed, particularly for proton treatment planning, in which special consideration is paid to the depth and sharp distal fall-off of the proton distribution. This study presents and evaluates a standardized method of proton treatment planning for craniospinal irradiation (CSI). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 36% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 11 | 28% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#12,869,210
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#554
of 2,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,901
of 283,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,046 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 283,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 50% of its contemporaries.