↓ Skip to main content

The role of high-throughput technologies in clinical cancer genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
The role of high-throughput technologies in clinical cancer genomics
Published in
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, January 2014
DOI 10.1586/erm.13.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saad F Idris, Saif S Ahmad, Michael A Scott, George S Vassiliou, James Hadfield

Abstract

Cancer is a genetic disease driven by both heritable and somatic alterations in DNA, which underpin not only oncogenesis but also progression and eventual metastasis. The major impetus for elucidating the nature and function of somatic mutations in cancer genomes is the potential for the development of effective targeted anticancer therapies. Over the last decade, high-throughput technologies have allowed us unprecedented access to a host of cancer genomes, leading to an influx of new information about their pathobiology. The challenge now is to integrate such emerging information into clinical practice to achieve tangible benefits for cancer patients. This review examines the roles array-based comparative genomic hybridization and next-generation sequencing are playing in furthering our understanding of both hematological and solid-organ tumors. Furthermore, the authors discuss the current challenges in translating the role of these technologies from bench to bedside.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 25 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 43%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,656,097
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics
#69
of 845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,000
of 159,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 845 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 159,271 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 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.