| Title |
A Genetic Risk Score to Personalize Prostate Cancer Screening, Applied to Population Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, September 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-19-1527 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le, Chun Chieh Fan, Roshan Karunamuni, Eleanor I. Walsh, Emma L. Turner, J. Athene Lane, Richard M. Martin, David E. Neal, Jenny L. Donovan, Freddie C. Hamdy, J. Kellogg Parsons, Rosalind A. Eeles, Douglas F. Easton, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Ali Amin Al Olama, Sara Benlloch Garcia, Kenneth Muir, Henrik Grönberg, Fredrik Wiklund, Markus Aly, Johanna Schleutker, Csilla Sipeky, Teuvo LJ Tammela, Børge Grønne Nordestgaard, Timothy J. Key, Ruth C. Travis, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Nora Pashayan, Kay-Tee Khaw, Stephen N. Thibodeau, Shannon K. McDonnell, Daniel J. Schaid, Christiane Maier, Walther Vogel, Manuel Luedeke, Kathleen Herkommer, Adam S. Kibel, Cezary Cybulski, Dominika Wokolorczyk, Wojciech Kluzniak, Lisa A. Cannon-Albright, Hermann Brenner, Ben Schöttker, Bernd Holleczek, Jong Y. Park, Thomas A. Sellers, Hui-Yi Lin, Chavdar Kroumov Slavov, Radka P. Kaneva, Vanio I. Mitev, Jyotsna Batra, Judith A. Clements, Amanda B. Spurdle, for the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource, Manuel R. Teixeira, Paula Paulo, Sofia Maia, Hardev Pandha, Agnieszka Michael, Ian G. Mills, Ole A. Andreassen, Anders M. Dale, Tyler M. Seibert, for the PRACTICAL Consortium |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 71% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,440,797
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#1,239
of 4,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,894
of 426,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#19
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 426,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.