↓ Skip to main content

Iatrogenic solid tumors following immunosuppressive therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Iatrogenic solid tumors following immunosuppressive therapy
Published in
Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology, September 2017
DOI 10.1053/j.semdp.2017.09.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Immunosuppression induced by chronic medication, such as occurs post-transplantation, may increase a patient's risk of developing solid tumors. These are often rare tumors characterized by odd presentations. This review focuses on commonly encountered iatrogenic, non-hematopoietic solid tumors following immunotherapy and provides a practical approach to their diagnosis. All of the malignancies covered in this review are viral-induced. They include human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated carcinomas, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated tumors, Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV)-related Merkel cell carcinoma, and Human Herpesvirus 8 (HHV8)-related Kaposi sarcoma. The complementary diagnostic role of ancillary studies, such as immunohistochemistry and in-situ hybridization that target these oncogenic viruses, is addressed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 14 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,017,425
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology
#311
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,956
of 331,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 331,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.