↓ Skip to main content

American Association for Cancer Research

Neoepitopes of Cancers: Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Immunology Research, September 2015
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 (#24 of 1,587)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
patent
10 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Neoepitopes of Cancers: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
Published in
Cancer Immunology Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1158/2326-6066.cir-15-0134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pramod K. Srivastava

Abstract

The search for specificity in cancers has been a holy grail in cancer immunology. Cancer geneticists have long known that cancers harbor transforming and other mutations. Immunologists have long known that inbred mice can be immunized against syngeneic cancers, indicating the existence of cancer-specific antigens. With the technological advances in high-throughput DNA sequencing and bioinformatics, the genetic and immunologic lines of inquiry are now converging to provide definitive evidence that human cancers are vastly different from normal tissues at the genetic level, and that some of these differences are recognized by the immune system. The very vastness of genetic changes in cancers now raises different question. Which of the many cancer-specific genetic (genomic) changes are actually recognized by the immune system, and why? New observations are now beginning to probe these vital issues with unprecedented resolution and are informing a new generation of studies in human cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res; 3(9); 969-77. ©2015 AACR.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Student > Master 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 24 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 20 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 114. 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 11 April 2023.
All research outputs
#371,992
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Immunology Research
#24
of 1,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,586
of 278,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Immunology Research
#1
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. 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 278,522 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 97% of its contemporaries.