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 |
A Multi-Analyte Assay for the Non-Invasive Detection of Bladder Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0047469 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steve Goodison, Myron Chang, Yunfeng Dai, Virginia Urquidi, Charles J. Rosser |
| Abstract |
Accurate urinary assays for bladder cancer (BCa) detection would benefit both patients and healthcare systems. Through genomic and proteomic profiling of urine components, we have previously identified a panel of biomarkers that can outperform current urine-based biomarkers for the non-invasive detection of BCa. Herein, we report the diagnostic utility of various multivariate combinations of these biomarkers. We performed a case-controlled validation study in which voided urines from 127 patients (64 tumor bearing subjects) were analyzed. The urinary concentrations of 14 biomarkers (IL-8, MMP-9, MMP-10, SDC1, CCL18, PAI-1, CD44, VEGF, ANG, CA9, A1AT, OPN, PTX3, and APOE) were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Diagnostic performance of each biomarker and multivariate models were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves and the chi-square test. An 8-biomarker model achieved the most accurate BCa diagnosis (sensitivity 92%, specificity 97%), but a combination of 3 of the 8 biomarkers (IL-8, VEGF, and APOE) was also highly accurate (sensitivity 90%, specificity 97%). For comparison, the commercial BTA-Trak ELISA test achieved a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 83%, and voided urine cytology detected only 33% of BCa cases in the same cohort. These data show that a multivariate urine-based assay can markedly improve the accuracy of non-invasive BCa detection. Further validation studies are under way to investigate the clinical utility of this panel of biomarkers for BCa diagnosis and disease monitoring. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 25% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
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 25 October 2012.
All research outputs
#18,319,742
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,899
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,454
of 176,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,562
of 4,783 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 176,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,783 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.