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 |
Multimodal hypoxia imaging and intensity modulated radiation therapy for unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: the HIL trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-717x-7-157 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vasileios Askoxylakis, Julien Dinkel, Monika Eichinger, Bram Stieltjes, Gregor Sommer, Ludwig G Strauss, Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Uwe Haberkorn, Peter E Huber, Marc Bischof, Jürgen Debus, Christian Thieke |
| Abstract |
Radiotherapy, preferably combined with chemotherapy, is the treatment standard for locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The tumor response to different therapy protocols is variable, with hypoxia known to be a major factor that negatively influences treatment effectiveness. Visualisation of tumor hypoxia prior to the use of modern radiation therapy strategies, such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), might allow optimized dose applications to the target volume, leading to improvement of therapy outcome. (18)F-fluoromisonidazole dynamic positron emission tomography and computed tomography ((18) F-FMISO dPET-CT) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (functional MRI) are attractive options for imaging tumor hypoxia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 26% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 32% |
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 14 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,314,922
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,408
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,373
of 168,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#27
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 168,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.