↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Monte Carlo and analytic simulations in nanoparticle-enhanced radiation therapy

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Monte Carlo and analytic simulations in nanoparticle-enhanced radiation therapy
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s114025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Autumn D. Paro, Mainul Hossain, Thomas Webster, Ming Su

Abstract

Analytical and Monte Carlo simulations have been used to predict dose enhancement factors in nanoparticle-enhanced X-ray radiation therapy. Both simulations predict an increase in dose enhancement in the presence of nanoparticles, but the two methods predict different levels of enhancement over the studied energy, nanoparticle materials, and concentration regime for several reasons. The Monte Carlo simulation calculates energy deposited by electrons and photons, while the analytical one only calculates energy deposited by source photons and photoelectrons; the Monte Carlo simulation accounts for electron-hole recombination, while the analytical one does not; and the Monte Carlo simulation randomly samples photon or electron path and accounts for particle interactions, while the analytical simulation assumes a linear trajectory. This study demonstrates that the Monte Carlo simulation will be a better choice to evaluate dose enhancement with nanoparticles in radiation therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 67%
Student > Master 1 33%
Professor 1 33%
Researcher 1 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 33%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 3 100%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,980,886
of 11,340,339 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#596
of 2,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,081
of 260,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#16
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,340,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,260 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 260,803 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.