↓ Skip to main content

Being PRO-ACTive: What can a Clinical Trial Database Reveal About ALS?

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Being PRO-ACTive: What can a Clinical Trial Database Reveal About ALS?
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13311-015-0336-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neta Zach, David L. Ennist, Albert A. Taylor, Hagit Alon, Alexander Sherman, Robert Kueffner, Jason Walker, Ervin Sinani, Igor Katsovskiy, Merit Cudkowicz, Melanie L. Leitner

Abstract

Advancing research and clinical care, and conducting successful and cost-effective clinical trials requires characterizing a given patient population. To gather a sufficiently large cohort of patients in rare diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), we developed the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) platform. The PRO-ACT database currently consists of >8600 ALS patient records from 17 completed clinical trials, and more trials are being incorporated. The database was launched in an open-access mode in December 2012; since then, >400 researchers from >40 countries have requested the data. This review gives an overview on the research enabled by this resource, through several examples of research already carried out with the goal of improving patient care and understanding the disease. These examples include predicting ALS progression, the simulation of future ALS clinical trials, the verification of previously proposed predictive features, the discovery of novel predictors of ALS progression and survival, the newly identified stratification of patients based on their disease progression profiles, and the development of tools for better clinical trial recruitment and monitoring. Results from these approaches clearly demonstrate the value of large datasets for developing a better understanding of ALS natural history, prognostic factors, patient stratification, and more. The increasing use by the community suggests that further analyses of the PRO-ACT database will continue to reveal more information about this disease that has for so long defied our understanding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Neuroscience 9 14%
Computer Science 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#1,225
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,603
of 279,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.