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 |
Interrogating open issues in cancer precision medicine with patient-derived xenografts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Reviews Cancer, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nrc.2016.140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annette T. Byrne, Denis G. Alférez, Frédéric Amant, Daniela Annibali, Joaquín Arribas, Andrew V. Biankin, Alejandra Bruna, Eva Budinská, Carlos Caldas, David K. Chang, Robert B. Clarke, Hans Clevers, George Coukos, Virginie Dangles-Marie, S. Gail Eckhardt, Eva Gonzalez-Suarez, Els Hermans, Manuel Hidalgo, Monika A. Jarzabek, Steven de Jong, Jos Jonkers, Kristel Kemper, Luisa Lanfrancone, Gunhild Mari Mælandsmo, Elisabetta Marangoni, Jean-Christophe Marine, Enzo Medico, Jens Henrik Norum, Héctor G. Palmer, Daniel S. Peeper, Pier Giuseppe Pelicci, Alejandro Piris-Gimenez, Sergio Roman-Roman, Oscar M. Rueda, Joan Seoane, Violeta Serra, Laura Soucek, Dominique Vanhecke, Alberto Villanueva, Emilie Vinolo, Andrea Bertotti, Livio Trusolino |
| Abstract |
Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) have emerged as an important platform to elucidate new treatments and biomarkers in oncology. PDX models are used to address clinically relevant questions, including the contribution of tumour heterogeneity to therapeutic responsiveness, the patterns of cancer evolutionary dynamics during tumour progression and under drug pressure, and the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. The ability of PDX models to predict clinical outcomes is being improved through mouse humanization strategies and the implementation of co-clinical trials, within which patients and PDXs reciprocally inform therapeutic decisions. This Opinion article discusses aspects of PDX modelling that are relevant to these questions and highlights the merits of shared PDX resources to advance cancer medicine from the perspective of EurOPDX, an international initiative devoted to PDX-based research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 | 9 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 10% |
| Ireland | 4 | 7% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| Norway | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| China | 2 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 50% |
| Scientists | 25 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 755 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 747 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 149 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 146 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 63 | 8% |
| Other | 45 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 5% |
| Other | 130 | 17% |
| Unknown | 183 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 178 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 118 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 99 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 31 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 4% |
| Other | 88 | 12% |
| Unknown | 213 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#361,944
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Cancer
#85
of 2,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,714
of 422,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Cancer
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 422,915 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 92% of its contemporaries.