↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Phase III Open-Label Randomized Study of Cytarabine in Combination With Amonafide L-Malate or Daunorubicin As Induction Therapy for Patients With Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, March 2015
DOI 10.1200/jco.2014.57.0952
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML), defined as AML arising after a prior myelodysplastic syndrome or after antineoplastic therapy, responds poorly to current therapies. It is often associated with adverse karyotypic abnormalities and overexpression of proteins that mediate drug resistance. We performed a phase III trial to determine whether induction therapy with cytarabine and amonafide L-malate, a DNA intercalator and non-ATP-dependent topoisomerase II inhibitor that evades drug resistance mechanisms, yielded a superior complete remission rate than standard therapy with cytarabine and daunorubicin in sAML.

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 3 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 65 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 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Professor 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 20 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Chemistry 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,518,539
of 34,350,842 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#7,094
of 32,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,887
of 297,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#92
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,350,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 297,527 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 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 64% of its contemporaries.