| Title |
Vaccine Therapies in Malignant Glioma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11910-014-0508-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Taemin Oh, Eli T. Sayegh, Shayan Fakurnejad, Daniel Oyon, Jonathan Balquiedra Lamano, Joseph David DiDomenico, Orin Bloch, Andrew T. Parsa |
| Abstract |
Glioblastoma is a grade IV astrocytoma that is widely accepted in clinical neurosurgery as being an extremely lethal diagnosis. Long-term survival rates remain dismal, and even when tumors undergo gross resection with confirmation of total removal on neuroimaging, they invariably recur with even greater virulence. Standard therapeutic modalities as well as more contemporary treatments have largely resulted in disappointing improvements. However, the therapeutic potential of vaccine immunotherapy for malignant glioma should not be underestimated. In contrast to many of the available treatments, vaccine immunotherapy is unique because it offers the means of delivering treatment that is highly specific to both the patient and the tumor. Peptide, heat-shock proteins, and dendritic cell vaccines collectively encapsulate the majority of research efforts involving vaccine-based treatment modalities. In this review, important recent findings for these vaccine types are discussed in the context of ongoing clinical trials. Broad challenges to immunotherapy are also considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,427,926
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#622
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,200
of 365,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 365,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 50% of its contemporaries.