↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge Integration in Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Knowledge Integration in Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, January 2013
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-12-1144
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P.A. Ioannidis, Sheri D. Schully, Tram Kim Lam, Muin J. Khoury

Abstract

Knowledge integration includes knowledge management, synthesis, and translation processes. It aims to maximize the use of collected scientific information and accelerate translation of discoveries into individual and population health benefits. Accumulated evidence in cancer epidemiology constitutes a large share of the 2.7 million articles on cancer in PubMed. We examine the landscape of knowledge integration in cancer epidemiology. Past approaches have mostly used retrospective efforts of knowledge management and traditional systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic searches identify 2,332 meta-analyses, about half of which are on genetics and epigenetics. Meta-analyses represent 1:89-1:1162 of published articles in various cancer subfields. Recently, there are more collaborative meta-analyses with individual-level data, including those with prospective collection of measurements [e.g., genotypes in genome-wide association studies (GWAS)]; this may help increase the reliability of inferences in the field. However, most meta-analyses are still done retrospectively with published information. There is also a flurry of candidate gene meta-analyses with spuriously prevalent "positive" results. Prospective design of large research agendas, registration of datasets, and public availability of data and analyses may improve our ability to identify knowledge gaps, maximize and accelerate translational progress or-at a minimum-recognize dead ends in a more timely fashion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Uruguay 1 2%
Costa Rica 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 July 2013.
All research outputs
#6,313,184
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#1,660
of 4,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,210
of 288,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#16
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,847 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 65% 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 288,794 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 54% of its contemporaries.