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 |
Imaging characteristics of pleural tumours
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-015-0441-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luca De Paoli, Emilio Quaia, Gabriele Poillucci, Antonio Gennari, Maria Assunta Cova |
| Abstract |
Malignant mesothelioma is doubtless the more known pleural tumour. However, according to the morphology code of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O), there are several histological types of pleural neoplasms, divided into mesothelial, mesenchymal and lymphoproliferative tumours, that may be misdiagnosed. In this paper we summarise and illustrate the incidence aspects and the clinical, pathological and radiological features of these neoplasms. • According to the ICD-O, there are 11 different histological types of pleural neoplasm. • Imaging, clinical and histopathological aspects of these neoplasms may be overlapping. • Knowledge of different pleural tumours plays an important role for diagnosis orientation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,206,093
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#631
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,780
of 284,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 284,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.