↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, September 2015
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
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training
Published in
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, September 2015
DOI 10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5661
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth A. Harkness, Jerry D. Allison, Jessica B. Clements, Charles W. Coffey, Frederic H. Fahey, Dustin A. Gress, Paul E. Kinahan, Edward L. Nickoloff, Osama R. Mawlawi, Robert D. MacDougall, Robert J. Pizzuitello

Abstract

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to: Estimate the demand for board-certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5-10 years, Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, and Identify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists. As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face-to-face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission. PACS number: 01.40.G.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Physics and Astronomy 4 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 6%

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 02 December 2018.
All research outputs
#8,322,412
of 13,958,558 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#263
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,976
of 358,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#34
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,958,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 358,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.