| Title |
Bridging the clinical gaps: genetic, epigenetic and transcriptomic biomarkers for the early detection of lung cancer in the post-National Lung Screening Trial era
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-168 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John F Brothers, Kahkeshan Hijazi, Celine Mascaux, Randa A El-Zein, Margaret R Spitz, Avrum Spira |
| Abstract |
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide in part due to our inability to identify which smokers are at highest risk and the lack of effective tools to detect the disease at its earliest and potentially curable stage. Recent results from the National Lung Screening Trial have shown that annual screening of high-risk smokers with low-dose helical computed tomography of the chest can reduce lung cancer mortality. However, molecular biomarkers are needed to identify which current and former smokers would benefit most from annual computed tomography scan screening in order to reduce the costs and morbidity associated with this procedure. Additionally, there is an urgent clinical need to develop biomarkers that can distinguish benign from malignant lesions found on computed tomography of the chest given its very high false positive rate. This review highlights recent genetic, transcriptomic and epigenomic biomarkers that are emerging as tools for the early detection of lung cancer both in the diagnostic and screening setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 61 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 July 2013.
All research outputs
#6,009,968
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,301
of 3,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,856
of 196,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#46
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 196,950 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.