↓ Skip to main content

Molecular Testing Guideline for Selection of Lung Cancer Patients for EGFR and ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the…

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
25 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
406 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
Title
Molecular Testing Guideline for Selection of Lung Cancer Patients for EGFR and ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology
Published in
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.5858/arpa.2012-0720-oa
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neal I Lindeman, Philip T Cagle, Mary Beth Beasley, Dhananjay Arun Chitale, Sanja Dacic, Giuseppe Giaccone, Robert Brian Jenkins, David J Kwiatkowski, Juan-Sebastian Saldivar, Jeremy Squire, Erik Thunnissen, Marc Ladanyi

Abstract

To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 211 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 23%
Other 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Master 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Other 49 22%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 118 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Chemistry 5 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 41 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,104,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#197
of 2,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,152
of 212,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#1
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 212,795 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.