↓ Skip to main content

Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
152 X users
patent
16 patents
weibo
3 weibo users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
5 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
2140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1687 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer
Published in
Nature, February 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew V. Biankin, Amber L. Johns, Amanda Mawson, David K. Chang, Christopher J. Scarlett, Mary-Anne L. Brancato, Sarah J. Rowe, Skye H. Simpson, Mona Martyn-Smith, Michelle T. Thomas, Lorraine A. Chantrill, Venessa T. Chin, Angela Chou, Mark J. Cowley, Jeremy L. Humphris, Marc D. Jones, R. Scott Mead, Adnan M. Nagrial, Marina Pajic, Jessica Pettit, Mark Pinese, Ilse Rooman, Jianmin Wu, Jiang Tao, Renee DiPietro, Clare Watson, Angela Steinmann, Hong Ching Lee, Rachel Wong, Andreia V. Pinho, Marc Giry-Laterriere, Roger J. Daly, Elizabeth A. Musgrove, Robert L. Sutherland, Sean M. Grimmond, Nicola Waddell, Karin S. Kassahn, David K. Miller, Peter J. Wilson, Ann-Marie Patch, Sarah Song, Ivon Harliwong, Senel Idrisoglu, Craig Nourse, Ehsan Nourbakhsh, Suzanne Manning, Shivangi Wani, Milena Gongora, Matthew Anderson, Oliver Holmes, Conrad Leonard, Darrin Taylor, Scott Wood, Christina Xu, Katia Nones, J. Lynn Fink, Angelika Christ, Tim Bruxner, Nicole Cloonan, Felicity Newell, John V. Pearson, Peter Bailey, Michael Quinn, Shivashankar Nagaraj, Stephen Kazakoff, Nick Waddell, Keerthana Krisnan, Kelly Quek, David Wood, Muhammad Z. H. Fadlullah, Jaswinder S. Samra, Anthony J. Gill, Nick Pavlakis, Alex Guminski, Christopher Toon, Ray Asghari, Neil D. Merrett, Darren Pavey, Amitabha Das, Peter H. Cosman, Kasim Ismail, Chelsie O’Connnor, Vincent W. Lam Duncan McLeod, Henry C. Pleass, Arthur Richardson, Virginia James, James G. Kench, Caroline L. Cooper, David Joseph, Charbel Sandroussi, Michael Crawford, James Gallagher, Michael Texler, Cindy Forest, Andrew Laycock, Krishna P. Epari, Mo Ballal, David R. Fletcher, Sanjay Mukhedkar, Nigel A. Spry, Bastiaan DeBoer, Ming Chai, Nikolajs Zeps, Maria Beilin, Kynan Feeney, Nan Q. Nguyen, Andrew R. Ruszkiewicz, Chris Worthley, Chuan P. Tan, Tamara Debrencini, John Chen, Mark E. Brooke-Smith, Virginia Papangelis, Henry Tang, Andrew P. Barbour, Andrew D. Clouston, Patrick Martin, Thomas J. O’Rourke, Amy Chiang, Jonathan W. Fawcett, Kellee Slater, Shinn Yeung, Michael Hatzifotis, Peter Hodgkinson, Christopher Christophi, Mehrdad Nikfarjam, Angela Mountain, James R. Eshleman, Ralph H. Hruban, Anirban Maitra, Christine A. Iacobuzio-Donahue, Richard D. Schulick, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Richard A Morgan, Mary Hodgin, Aldo Scarpa, Rita T. Lawlor, Stefania Beghelli, Vincenzo Corbo, Maria Scardoni, Claudio Bassi, Margaret A. Tempero, Andrew V. Biankin, Sean M. Grimmond, David K. Chang, Elizabeth A. Musgrove, Marc D. Jones, Craig Nourse, Nigel B. Jamieson, Janet S. Graham, Andrew V. Biankin, David K. Chang, Nigel B. Jamieson, Janet S. Graham, Karen Oien, Jane Hair

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 152 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 1,687 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 1%
Germany 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Japan 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
China 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 1633 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 338 20%
Researcher 331 20%
Student > Master 153 9%
Student > Bachelor 146 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 103 6%
Other 270 16%
Unknown 346 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 450 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 347 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 295 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 40 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 32 2%
Other 132 8%
Unknown 391 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 287. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#123,448
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#8,177
of 98,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,292
of 270,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#168
of 987 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 270,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 987 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.