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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic and Chromosomal Aberrations and Their Clinical Significance in Renal Neoplasms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioMed Research International, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2015/476508 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ning Yi Yap, Retnagowri Rajandram, Keng Lim Ng, Jayalakshmi Pailoor, Ahmad Fadzli, Glenda Carolyn Gobe |
| Abstract |
The most common form of malignant renal neoplasms is renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is classified into several different subtypes based on the histomorphological features. However, overlaps in these characteristics may present difficulties in the accurate diagnosis of these subtypes, which have different clinical outcomes. Genomic and molecular studies have revealed unique genetic aberrations in each subtype. Knowledge of these genetic changes in hereditary and sporadic renal neoplasms has given an insight into the various proteins and signalling pathways involved in tumour formation and progression. In this review, the genetic aberrations characteristic to each renal neoplasm subtype are evaluated along with the associated protein products and affected pathways. The potential applications of these genetic aberrations and proteins as diagnostic tools, prognostic markers, or therapeutic targets are also assessed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BioMed Research International
#5,209
of 10,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,842
of 280,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMed Research International
#294
of 563 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 280,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 563 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.