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 |
PDX-MI: Minimal Information for Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Research, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0582 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Terrence F. Meehan, Nathalie Conte, Theodore Goldstein, Giorgio Inghirami, Mark A. Murakami, Sebastian Brabetz, Zhiping Gu, Jeffrey A. Wiser, Patrick Dunn, Dale A. Begley, Debra M. Krupke, Andrea Bertotti, Alejandra Bruna, Matthew H. Brush, Annette T. Byrne, Carlos Caldas, Amanda L. Christie, Dominic A. Clark, Heidi Dowst, Jonathan R. Dry, James H. Doroshow, Olivier Duchamp, Yvonne A. Evrard, Stephane Ferretti, Kristopher K. Frese, Neal C. Goodwin, Danielle Greenawalt, Melissa A. Haendel, Els Hermans, Peter J. Houghton, Jos Jonkers, Kristel Kemper, Tin O. Khor, Michael T. Lewis, K.C. Kent Lloyd, Jeremy Mason, Enzo Medico, Steven B. Neuhauser, James M. Olson, Daniel S. Peeper, Oscar M. Rueda, Je Kyung Seong, Livio Trusolino, Emilie Vinolo, Robert J. Wechsler-Reya, David M. Weinstock, Alana Welm, S. John Weroha, Frédéric Amant, Stefan M. Pfister, Marcel Kool, Helen Parkinson, Atul J. Butte, Carol J. Bult |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 8 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Comoros | 1 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 77% |
| Scientists | 4 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 155 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 17% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 15% |
| Unknown | 39 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,432,965
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Research
#930
of 18,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,981
of 340,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Research
#29
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 340,821 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.