↓ Skip to main content

Neurofibromatosis 2011: a report of the Children’s Tumor Foundation Annual Meeting

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropathologica, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Neurofibromatosis 2011: a report of the Children’s Tumor Foundation Annual Meeting
Published in
Acta Neuropathologica, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00401-011-0905-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michel Kalamarides, Maria T. Acosta, Dusica Babovic-Vuksanovic, Olli Carpen, Karen Cichowski, D. Gareth Evans, Filippo Giancotti, C. Oliver Hanemann, David Ingram, Alison C. Lloyd, Debra A. Mayes, Ludwine Messiaen, Helen Morrison, Kathryn North, Roger Packer, Duojia Pan, Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov, Meena Upadhyaya, David Viskochil, Margret R. Wallace, Kim Hunter-Schaedle, Nancy Ratner

Abstract

The 2011 annual meeting of the Children's Tumor Foundation, the annual gathering of the neurofibromatosis (NF) research and clinical communities, was attended by 330 participants who discussed integration of new signaling pathways into NF research, the appreciation for NF mutations in sporadic cancers, and an expanding pre-clinical and clinical agenda. NF1, NF2, and schwannomatosis collectively affect approximately 100,000 persons in US, and result from mutations in different genes. Benign tumors of NF1 (neurofibroma and optic pathway glioma) and NF2 (schwannoma, ependymoma, and meningioma) and schwannomatosis (schwannoma) can cause significant morbidity, and there are no proven drug treatments for any form of NF. Each disorder is associated with additional manifestations causing morbidity. The research presentations described in this review covered basic science, preclinical testing, and results from clinical trials, and demonstrate the remarkable strides being taken toward understanding of and progress toward treatments for these disorders based on the close interaction among scientists and clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Computer Science 4 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 November 2011.
All research outputs
#13,659,672
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#2,023
of 2,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,712
of 125,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 125,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.