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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Strategies of Dose Escalation in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Image Guidance and Beyond
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2014.00156 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Chi, Nam Phong Nguyen, James S. Welsh, William Tse, Manish Monga, Olusola Oduntan, Mohammed Almubarak, John Rogers, Scot C. Remick, David Gius |
| Abstract |
Radiation dose in the setting of chemo-radiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been historically limited by the risk of normal tissue toxicity and this has been hypothesized to correlate with the poor results in regard to local tumor recurrences. Dose escalation, as a means to improve local control, with concurrent chemotherapy has been shown to be feasible with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in early phase studies with good clinical outcome. However, the potential superiority of moderate dose escalation to 74 Gy has not been shown in phase III randomized studies. In this review, the limitations in target volume definition in previous studies; and the factors that may be critical to safe dose escalation in the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC, such as respiratory motion management, image guidance, intensity modulation, FDG-positron emission tomography incorporation in the treatment planning process, and adaptive radiotherapy, are discussed. These factors, along with novel treatment approaches that have emerged in recent years, are proposed to warrant further investigation in future trials in a more comprehensive and integrated fashion. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 27% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 50% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,319
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,797
of 242,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#47
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 242,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.