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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Protein-Based Multiplex Assays: Mock Presubmissions to the US Food and Drug Administration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Chemistry, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1373/clinchem.2009.140087 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fred E Regnier, Steven J Skates, Mehdi Mesri, Henry Rodriguez, Živana Težak, Marina V Kondratovich, Michail A Alterman, Joshua D Levin, Donna Roscoe, Eugene Reilly, James Callaghan, Kellie Kelm, David Brown, Reena Philip, Steven A Carr, Daniel C Liebler, Susan J Fisher, Paul Tempst, Tara Hiltke, Larry G Kessler, Christopher R Kinsinger, David F Ransohoff, Elizabeth Mansfield, N Leigh Anderson |
| Abstract |
As a part of ongoing efforts of the NCI-FDA Interagency Oncology Task Force subcommittee on molecular diagnostics, members of the Clinical Proteomic Technology Assessment for Cancer program of the National Cancer Institute have submitted 2 protein-based multiplex assay descriptions to the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety, US Food and Drug Administration. The objective was to evaluate the analytical measurement criteria and studies needed to validate protein-based multiplex assays. Each submission described a different protein-based platform: a multiplex immunoaffinity mass spectrometry platform for protein quantification, and an immunological array platform quantifying glycoprotein isoforms. Submissions provided a mutually beneficial way for members of the proteomics and regulatory communities to identify the analytical issues that the field should address when developing protein-based multiplex clinical assays. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 41% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Professor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 April 2012.
All research outputs
#15,279,577
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry
#6,409
of 7,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,509
of 164,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry
#34
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 164,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.