You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, December 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2006.09.2775 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio C. Wolff, M. Elizabeth H. Hammond, Jared N. Schwartz, Karen L. Hagerty, D. Craig Allred, Richard J. Cote, Mitchell Dowsett, Patrick L. Fitzgibbons, Wedad M. Hanna, Amy Langer, Lisa M. McShane, Soonmyung Paik, Mark D. Pegram, Edith A. Perez, Michael F. Press, Anthony Rhodes, Catharine Sturgeon, Sheila E. Taube, Raymond Tubbs, Gail H. Vance, Marc van de Vijver, Thomas M. Wheeler, Daniel F. Hayes |
| Abstract |
To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | <1% |
| Brazil | 7 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| Japan | 4 | <1% |
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Austria | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 25 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1086 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 179 | 16% |
| Researcher | 179 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 124 | 11% |
| Other | 103 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 101 | 9% |
| Other | 255 | 22% |
| Unknown | 209 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 410 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 180 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 115 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 32 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 28 | 2% |
| Other | 146 | 13% |
| Unknown | 239 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,182,889
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#2,885
of 22,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,976
of 172,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#3
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 172,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.