↓ Skip to main content

Imaging Modalities to Assess Oxygen Status in Glioblastoma

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Imaging Modalities to Assess Oxygen Status in Glioblastoma
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2015.00057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurélien Corroyer-Dulmont, Ararat Chakhoyan, Solène Collet, Lucile Durand, Eric T. MacKenzie, Edwige Petit, Myriam Bernaudin, Omar Touzani, Samuel Valable

Abstract

Hypoxia, the result of an inadequacy between a disorganized and functionally impaired vasculature and the metabolic demand of tumor cells, is a feature of glioblastoma. Hypoxia promotes the aggressiveness of these tumors and, equally, negatively correlates with a decrease in outcome. Tools to characterize oxygen status are essential for the therapeutic management of patients with glioblastoma (i) to refine prognosis, (ii) to adapt the treatment regimen, and (iii) to assess the therapeutic efficacy. While methods that are focal and invasive in nature are of limited use, non-invasive imaging technologies have been developed. Each of these technologies is characterized by its singular advantages and limitations in terms of oxygenation status in glioblastoma. The aim of this short review is, first, to focus on the interest to characterize hypoxia for a better therapeutic management of patients and, second, to discuss recent and pertinent approaches for the assessment of oxygenation/hypoxia and their direct implication for patient care.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Chemistry 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#6,359
of 7,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,904
of 277,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 277,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.