| Title |
A consensus on liquid biopsy from the 2016 Chinese Lung Cancer Summit expert panel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ESMO Open, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000174 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi-Long Wu, Chang-Li Wang, Yan Sun, Mei-Lin Liao, Zhong-Zhen Guan, Zhi-Min Yang, Qing-Hua Zhou, Shun Lu, Ying Cheng, Xiao-Qing Liu, Xu-Chao Zhang, Caicun Zhou, Jie Wang, Qing Zhou, Yong Song, Bao-Hui Han, Zhi-Yong Ma, Fan Yang, Qun Wang, Shao-Kun Chuai, Yang Shao, Wei He, Guanshan Zhu, Lei Xiong, Jian-Jun Wang, Ke-Neng Chen, Li Zhang, Wei-Min Mao, Sheng-Lin Ma, Ji-Feng Feng, Xue-Ning Yang, Lin Xu, Gang Chen, Jian Zhao, Qi-Bin Song, Yang SHEN-TU, Gui-Bin Qiao, Ding Yu, Shi-Ying Yu, Yi Hu, Ming Chen, Gong-Yan Chen, Yun Fan, He-Long Zhang, Jun Liang, Guang-Ying Zhu, Jiu-Wei Cui, Jin-Ji Yang, Qiong Zhao, Ming-Fang Zhao, You Lu, Jian-Hua Chang, Jun-Ling Li, Yue Yang, Jie Hu, Chun-Dong Gu, Yi-Chen Zhang, Wen-Zhao Zhong |
| Abstract |
The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer have evolved into the era of precision medicine. Liquid biopsy, a minimally invasive approach, has emerged as a promising practice in genetic profiling and monitoring of lung cancer. Translating liquid biopsy from bench to bedside has encountered various challenges, including technique selection, protocol standardisation, data analysis and cost management. Regarding these challenges, the 2016 Chinese Lung Cancer Summit expert panel organised a trilateral forum involving oncologists, clinicians, clinical researchers, and industrial expertise on the 13th Chinese Lung Cancer Summit to formally discuss these controversies. Six consensuses were reached to guide the use of liquid biopsy and perform precision medicine in both clinic and research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 21 | 64% |
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 09 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from ESMO Open
#783
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,695
of 323,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ESMO Open
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 323,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.