↓ Skip to main content

Molecular Subtypes of Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 982)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
Title
Molecular Subtypes of Prostate Cancer
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11912-018-0707-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaveri Arora, Christopher E. Barbieri

Abstract

This review will examine the taxonomy of PCa subclasses across disease states, explore the relationship among specific alterations, and highlight current clinical relevance. Prostate cancer (PCa) is driven by multiple genomic alterations, with distinct patterns and clinical implications. Alterations occurring early in the timeline of the disease define core subtypes of localized, treatment-naive PCa. With time, an increase in number and severity of genomic alterations adds molecular complexity and is associated with progression to metastasis. These later events are not random and are influenced by the underlying subclasses. All the subclasses of localized disease initially respond to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but with progression to castrate-resistant PCa (CRPC), mechanisms of resistance against ADT shift the molecular landscape. In CRPC, resistance mechanisms largely define the biology and sub-classification of these cancers, while clinical relevance and opportunities for precision therapy are still being defined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 202 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Researcher 18 9%
Other 12 6%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 60 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 56 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 64 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,121,071
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#17
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,234
of 337,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 337,481 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.