↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: A report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: A report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190
Published in
Medical Physics, November 2015
DOI 10.1118/1.4934831
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pei-Jan P. Lin, Beth A. Schueler, Stephen Balter, Keith J. Strauss, Kevin A. Wunderle, M. Terry LaFrance, Don-Soo Kim, Richard H. Behrman, S. Jeff Shepard, Ishtiaq H. Bercha

Abstract

Due to the proliferation of disciplines employing fluoroscopy as their primary imaging tool and the prolonged extensive use of fluoroscopy in interventional and cardiovascular angiography procedures, "dose-area-product" (DAP) meters were installed to monitor and record the radiation dose delivered to patients. In some cases, the radiation dose or the output value is calculated, rather than measured, using the pertinent radiological parameters and geometrical information. The AAPM Task Group 190 (TG-190) was established to evaluate the accuracy of the DAP meter in 2008. Since then, the term "DAP-meter" has been revised to air kerma-area product (KAP) meter. The charge of TG 190 (Accuracy and Calibration of Integrated Radiation Output Indicators in Diagnostic Radiology) has also been realigned to investigate the "Accuracy and Calibration of Integrated Radiation Output Indicators" which is reflected in the title of the task group, to include situations where the KAP may be acquired with or without the presence of a physical "meter." To accomplish this goal, validation test protocols were developed to compare the displayed radiation output value to an external measurement. These test protocols were applied to a number of clinical systems to collect information on the accuracy of dose display values in the field.

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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 7%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 24%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 28 62%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Unspecified 6 13%
Engineering 3 7%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%

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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,590,356
of 11,093,941 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#2,576
of 5,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,854
of 251,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#29
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,093,941 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 251,812 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.