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 |
Coexistent Multiple Myeloma or Increased Bone Marrow Plasma Cells Define Equally High-Risk Populations in Patients With Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2013.50.8499 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Taxiarchis V. Kourelis, Shaji K. Kumar, Morie A. Gertz, Martha Q. Lacy, Francis K. Buadi, Suzanne R. Hayman, Steven Zeldenrust, Nelson Leung, Robert A. Kyle, Stephen Russell, David Dingli, John A. Lust, Yi Lin, Prashant Kapoor, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Arleigh McCurdy, Angela Dispenzieri |
| Abstract |
There is consensus that patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis with hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, and lytic bone lesions attributable to clonal expansion of plasma cells (CRAB criteria) also have multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to examine the spectrum of immunoglobulin AL amyloidosis with and without MM, with a goal of defining the optimal bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) number to qualify as AL amyloidosis with MM. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 11 | 55% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Morocco | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 55% |
| Scientists | 5 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 156 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 18% |
| Researcher | 18 | 11% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 21% |
| Unknown | 39 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,373,463
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#7,376
of 22,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,228
of 224,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#80
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 224,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.