| Title |
Neuroendocrine Carcinomas of the Larynx and Head and Neck: Challenges in Classification and Grading
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Head and Neck Pathology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12105-018-0894-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bayardo Perez-Ordoñez |
| Abstract |
Primary neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) of the larynx and head and neck are an uncommon and heterogeneous group of neoplasms categorized by the 2017 WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors as: (a) well-differentiated (WD-NEC), (b) moderately-differentiated (MD-NEC), and (c) poorly-differentiated (PD-NEC) with small cell and large cell types. The classification incorporates elements of differentiation and grading and closely correlates to the 5-year disease specific survival of 100, 52.8, 19.3 and 15.3% for each diagnostic category. These survival rates are based on historical data limited by the previous lack of standard pathologic diagnostic criteria. The classification has de-emphasized the use of the terms "carcinoid" and "atypical carcinoid" as diagnostic categories. The adoption of uniform pathologic criteria for the classification of NECs of the head and neck should enable the design of high quality studies in order to understand the molecular alterations of these neoplasms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 11 | 30% |
| Turkey | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 59% |
| Scientists | 8 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 65% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,744,955
of 24,171,511 outputs
Outputs from Head and Neck Pathology
#153
of 985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,959
of 336,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head and Neck Pathology
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,171,511 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 336,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 58% of its contemporaries.