| Title |
Leveraging Biospecimen Resources for Discovery or Validation of Markers for Early Cancer Detection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jnci/djv012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheri D Schully, Danielle M Carrick, Leah E Mechanic, Sudhir Srivastava, Garnet L Anderson, John A Baron, Christine D Berg, Jennifer Cullen, Eleftherios P Diamandis, V Paul Doria-Rose, Katrina A B Goddard, Susan E Hankinson, Lawrence H Kushi, Eric B Larson, Lisa M McShane, Richard L Schilsky, Steven Shak, Steven J Skates, Nicole Urban, Barnett S Kramer, Muin J Khoury, David F Ransohoff |
| Abstract |
Validation of early detection cancer biomarkers has proven to be disappointing when initial promising claims have often not been reproducible in diagnostic samples or did not extend to prediagnostic samples. The previously reported lack of rigorous internal validity (systematic differences between compared groups) and external validity (lack of generalizability beyond compared groups) may be effectively addressed by utilizing blood specimens and data collected within well-conducted cohort studies. Cohort studies with prediagnostic specimens (eg, blood specimens collected prior to development of clinical symptoms) and clinical data have recently been used to assess the validity of some early detection biomarkers. With this background, the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) and the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a joint workshop in August 2013. The goal was to advance early detection cancer research by considering how the infrastructure of cohort studies that already exist or are being developed might be leveraged to include appropriate blood specimens, including prediagnostic specimens, ideally collected at periodic intervals, along with clinical data about symptom status and cancer diagnosis. Three overarching recommendations emerged from the discussions: 1) facilitate sharing of existing specimens and data, 2) encourage collaboration among scientists developing biomarkers and those conducting observational cohort studies or managing healthcare systems with cohorts followed over time, and 3) conduct pilot projects that identify and address key logistic and feasibility issues regarding how appropriate specimens and clinical data might be collected at reasonable effort and cost within existing or future cohorts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 29% |
| Unknown | 10 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 30% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,322,774
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#2,095
of 7,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,119
of 271,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#43
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 271,287 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 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 67% of its contemporaries.