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 |
Optimization of temporal sampling for 18F-choline uptake quantification in prostate cancer assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EJNMMI Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13550-018-0410-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xavier Palard-Novello, Anne-Lise Blin, Florence Le Jeune, Etienne Garin, Pierre-Yves Salaün, Anne Devillers, Giulio Gambarota, Solène Querellou, Patrick Bourguet, Hervé Saint-Jalmes |
| Abstract |
Suboptimal temporal sampling of time-activity curves (TAC) from dynamic 18F-fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET images may introduce bias in quantification of FCH uptake in prostate cancer assessment. We sought to define an optimal temporal sampling protocol for dynamic FCH PET imaging. Seven different time samplings were tested: 5 × 60″, 10 × 30″, 15 × 15″-1 × 75″, 6 × 10″-8 × 30″, 12 × 5″-8 × 30″; 10 × 5″-4 × 10″-3 × 20″-5 × 30″, and 8 × 3″-8 × 12″-6 × 30″. First, the irreversible and reversible one-tissue compartment model with blood volume parameter (VB) (respectively, 1T1K+VB and 1T2k+VB, with K1 = transfer coefficient from the arterial blood to the tissue compartment and k2 = transfer coefficient from the tissue compartment to the arterial blood) were compared for 37 lesions from 32 patients who underwent FCH PET imaging for initial or recurrence assessment of prostate cancer, and the model was selected using the Akaike information criterion. To determine the optimal time sampling, K1 values extracted from 1000 noisy-simulated TAC using Monte Carlo method from the seven different time samplings were compared to a target K1 value which is the average of the K1 values extracted from the 37 lesions using an imaging-derived input function for each patient. K1 values extracted with the optimal time sampling for each tumoral lesion were compared to K1 values extracted from each of the other time samplings for the 37 lesions. The 1T2k + VB model was selected. The target K1 value as the objective was 0.506 mL/ccm/min (range 0.216-1.246). Results showed a significant difference between K1 values from the simulated TAC with the seven different time samplings analyzed. The closest K1 value from the simulated TAC to the target K1 value was obtained by the 12 × 5″-8 × 30″ time sampling. Concerning the clinical validation, K1 values extracted from the optimal time sampling (12 × 5″-8 × 30″) were significantly different with K1 values extracted from the other time samplings, except for the comparison with K1 values extracted from the 10 × 5″-4 × 10″-3 × 20″-5 × 30″ time sampling. A two-phase framing of dynamic PET reconstruction with frame durations of 5 s (blood phase) and 30 s (tissue phase) could be used to sample the TAC for uptake quantification in prostate cancer assessment. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,536,861
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#261
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,929
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.