↓ Skip to main content

American Association for Cancer Research

Paradoxical Clinical Effect of Estrogen on Breast Cancer Risk: A “New” Biology of Estrogen-induced Apoptosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Prevention Research, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Paradoxical Clinical Effect of Estrogen on Breast Cancer Risk: A “New” Biology of Estrogen-induced Apoptosis
Published in
Cancer Prevention Research, May 2011
DOI 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-11-0185
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Craig Jordan, Leslie G. Ford

Abstract

Administration of estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) decreases the incidence of breast cancer, as shown in a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in 10,739 postmenopausal women with a prior hysterectomy. Although paradoxical because estrogen is recognized to stimulate breast cancer growth, laboratory data support a mechanism of estrogen-induced apoptosis under the correct environmental circumstances. Long-term antiestrogen treatment or estrogen deprivation causes the eventual development and evolution of antihormone resistance. Cell populations emerge with a vulnerability, as estrogen is no longer a survival signal but is an apoptotic trigger. The antitumor effect of ERT in estrogen-deprived postmenopausal women is consistent with laboratory models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sri Lanka 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 28%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#956,494
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Prevention Research
#109
of 1,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,476
of 116,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Prevention Research
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 116,592 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 33 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 93% of its contemporaries.