↓ Skip to main content

Overview and recent advances in neuropathology. Part 1: Central nervous system tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Pathology, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
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.
Title
Overview and recent advances in neuropathology. Part 1: Central nervous system tumours
Published in
Pathology, February 2011
DOI 10.1097/pat.0b013e3283426e86
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Robertson, Barbara Koszyca, Michael Gonzales

Abstract

This review highlights the recent changes to the World Health Organization (WHO) 4th edition of the classification of central nervous system tumours. The mixed glial and neuronal tumour group continues to expand to encompass three new subtypes of glioneuronal tumours. The main diagnostic points differentiating these tumours are covered. Also covered is an update on issues relating to grading of astrocytic, oligodendroglial and pineal tumours and the recent molecular subtypes observed in medulloblastomas. The theme of molecular genetics is continued in the following section where the four subtypes in the molecular subclassification of glioblastoma; classical, mesenchymal, proneural and neural are outlined. The genetic profile of these subtypes is highlighted as is their varying biological responses to adjuvant therapies. The relationship between chromosome 1p and 19q deletions and treatment responsive oligodendrogliomas is discussed, as are the newer advances relating to silencing of the MGMT gene in astrocytomas and mutations in the IDH-1 gene in both astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas. The final section in this article provides an update on the concept of glioma stem cells.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Pathology
#689
of 1,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,102
of 193,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,528 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 193,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.