↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Indications for Carbon Ion Radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oncology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 11 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,441,440
of 14,574,928 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oncology
#204
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,310
of 276,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oncology
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 276,626 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 71% of its contemporaries.