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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/bjc.2016.227 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A Sayasneh, L Ferrara, B De Cock, S Saso, M Al-Memar, S Johnson, J Kaijser, J Carvalho, R Husicka, A Smith, C Stalder, M C Blanco, G Ettore, B Van Calster, D Timmerman, T Bourne |
| Abstract |
The International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group have developed the ADNEX (The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model to predict the risk that an ovarian mass is benign, borderline, stage I, stages II-IV or metastatic. We aimed to externally validate the ADNEX model in the hands of examiners with varied training and experience. This was a multicentre cross-sectional cohort study for diagnostic accuracy. Patients were recruited from three cancer centres in Europe. Patients who underwent transvaginal ultrasonography and had a histological diagnosis of surgically removed tissue were included. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model with and without the use of CA125 as a predictor was calculated. Data from 610 women were analysed. The overall prevalence of malignancy was 30%. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for the ADNEX diagnostic performance to differentiate between benign and malignant masses was 0.937 (95% CI: 0.915-0.954) when CA125 was included, and 0.925 (95% CI: 0.902-0.943) when CA125 was excluded. The calibration plots suggest good correspondence between the total predicted risk of malignancy and the observed proportion of malignancies. The model showed good discrimination between the different subtypes. The performance of the ADNEX model retains its performance on external validation in the hands of ultrasound examiners with varied training and experience.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 2 August 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.227 www.bjcancer.com. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 33 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 44% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 38 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,023,999
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#1,887
of 10,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,011
of 368,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#46
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 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 10,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 368,747 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 51% of its contemporaries.