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 |
Tumor regression grades, K-RAS mutational profile and c-MET in colorectal liver metastases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pathology - Research & Practice, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.prp.2017.04.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Lorenzon, Luana Ricca, Emanuela Pilozzi, Antoinette Lemoine, Valentina Riggio, Maria Teresa Giudice, Giuseppe Mallel, Flavio Fochetti, Genoveffa Balducci |
| Abstract |
Recently TRG, necrosis grade and the rate of viable cancer cells of colorectal liver metastases were correlated with the response to chemotherapy treatments, whereas K-RAS mutations and c-MET over-expression were correlated with the prognosis. 58 resection specimens were assessed for regression grades. Patients undergone neo-adjuvant treatments were compared to patients who underwent therapy exclusively adjuvantly. We investigated the K-RAS mutational profile, the c-MET over-expression along with patients' survivals curves. Patients undergone neo-adjuvant treatment presented significant higher fibrosis rates and lower rates of viable cells. 36.7% of the patients had a K-RAS mutation and the 26.7% presented c-MET over-expression, but these features did not correlate with patients' clinical/pathological data. Survival analysis documented that K-RAS WT patients presenting c-MET over-expression had worse outcomes. Fibrosis and the rate of viable cells significantly correlate with the response to chemotherapy treatments. c-MET is a promising marker in K-RAS WT patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Turkey | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Pathology - Research & Practice
#275
of 1,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,310
of 323,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology - Research & Practice
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 323,266 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 60% of its contemporaries.