↓ Skip to main content

Modeling treatment-dependent glioma growth including a dormant tumor cell subpopulation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Modeling treatment-dependent glioma growth including a dormant tumor cell subpopulation
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4281-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marvin A. Böttcher, Janka Held-Feindt, Michael Synowitz, Ralph Lucius, Arne Traulsen, Kirsten Hattermann

Abstract

Tumors comprise a variety of specialized cell phenotypes adapted to different ecological niches that massively influence the tumor growth and its response to treatment. In the background of glioblastoma multiforme, a highly malignant brain tumor, we consider a rapid proliferating phenotype that appears susceptible to treatment, and a dormant phenotype which lacks this pronounced proliferative ability and is not affected by standard therapeutic strategies. To gain insight in the dynamically changing proportions of different tumor cell phenotypes under different treatment conditions, we develop a mathematical model and underline our assumptions with experimental data. We show that both cell phenotypes contribute to the distinct composition of the tumor, especially in cycling low and high dose treatment, and therefore may influence the tumor growth in a phenotype specific way. Our model of the dynamic proportions of dormant and rapidly growing glioblastoma cells in different therapy settings suggests that phenotypically different cells should be considered to plan dose and duration of treatment schedules.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 21 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,314,875
of 25,416,581 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#393
of 8,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,154
of 343,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#20
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,416,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,986 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 343,137 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.