↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

New strategy for monitoring targeted therapy: molecular imaging

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
New strategy for monitoring targeted therapy: molecular imaging
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s51264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fei-Fei Teng, Xue Meng, Xin-Dong Sun, Jin-Ming Yu

Abstract

Targeted therapy is becoming an increasingly important component in the treatment of cancer. How to accurately monitor targeted therapy has been crucial in clinical practice. The traditional approach to monitor treatment through imaging has relied on assessing the change of tumor size by refined World Health Organization criteria, or more recently, by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. However, these criteria, which are based on the change of tumor size, show some limitations for evaluating targeted therapy. Currently, genetic alterations are identified with prognostic as well as predictive potential concerning the use of molecularly targeted drugs. Conversely, considering the limitations of invasiveness and the issue of expression heterogeneity, molecular imaging is better able to assay in vivo biologic processes noninvasively and quantitatively, and has been a particularly attractive tool for monitoring treatment in clinical cancer practice. This review focuses on the applications of different kinds of molecular imaging including positron emission tomography-, magnetic resonance imaging-, ultrasonography-, and computed tomography-based imaging strategies on monitoring targeted therapy. In addition, the key challenges of molecular imaging are addressed to successfully translate these promising techniques in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
India 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 29%
Engineering 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Chemistry 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,880
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,636
of 212,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#51
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. 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 212,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.