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.
| Title |
Pinhole X-ray fluorescence imaging of gadolinium and gold nanoparticles using polychromatic X-rays: a Monte Carlo study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s141185 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seongmoon Jung, Wonmo Sung, Sung-Joon Ye |
| Abstract |
This work aims to develop a Monte Carlo (MC) model for pinhole K-shell X-ray fluorescence (XRF) imaging of metal nanoparticles using polychromatic X-rays. The MC model consisted of two-dimensional (2D) position-sensitive detectors and fan-beam X-rays used to stimulate the emission of XRF photons from gadolinium (Gd) or gold (Au) nanoparticles. Four cylindrical columns containing different concentrations of nanoparticles ranging from 0.01% to 0.09% by weight (wt%) were placed in a 5 cm diameter cylindrical water phantom. The images of the columns had detectable contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of 5.7 and 4.3 for 0.01 wt% Gd and for 0.03 wt% Au, respectively. Higher concentrations of nanoparticles yielded higher CNR. For 1×10(11) incident particles, the radiation dose to the phantom was 19.9 mGy for 110 kVp X-rays (Gd imaging) and 26.1 mGy for 140 kVp X-rays (Au imaging). The MC model of a pinhole XRF can acquire direct 2D slice images of the object without image reconstruction. The MC model demonstrated that the pinhole XRF imaging system could be a potential bioimaging modality for nanomedicine. |
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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 3 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,470
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,586
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#53
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.