| Title |
The role of the pathologist in tissue banking: European Consensus Expert Group Report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virchows Archiv, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00428-010-0887-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Generoso Bevilacqua, Fred Bosman, Thibaut Dassesse, Heinz Höfler, Anne Janin, Rupert Langer, Denis Larsimont, Manuel M. Morente, Peter Riegman, Peter Schirmacher, Giorgio Stanta, Kurt Zatloukal, Elodie Caboux, Pierre Hainaut |
| Abstract |
Human tissue biobanking encompasses a wide range of activities and study designs and is critical for application of a wide range of new technologies (-"omics") to the discovery of molecular patterns of disease and for implementation of novel biomarkers into clinical trials. Pathology is the cornerstone of hospital-based tissue biobanking. Pathologists not only provide essential information identifying the specimen but also make decisions on what should be biobanked, making sure that the timing of all operations is consistent with both the requirements of clinical diagnosis and the optimal preservation of biological products. This document summarizes the conclusions of a Pathology Expert Group Meeting within the European Biological and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) Program. These recommendations are aimed at providing guidance for pathologists as well as for institutions hosting biobanks on how to better integrate and support pathological activities within the framework of biobanks that fulfill international standards. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Russia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
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 04 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,547,176
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#419
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,015
of 94,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 94,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.