↓ Skip to main content

The genomic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: clinical implications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

9 tweeters


24 Dimensions

Readers on

61 Mendeley
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.
The genomic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: clinical implications
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-124
Pubmed ID

Víctor Quesada, Andrew J Ramsay, David Rodríguez, Xose S Puente, Elías Campo, Carlos López-Otín


A precise understanding of the genomic and epigenomic features of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may benefit the study of the disease's staging and treatment. While recent reports have shed some light on these aspects, several challenges need to be addressed before translating this research into clinical practice. Thus, even the best candidate driver genes display low mutational rates compared to other tumors. This means that a large percentage of cases do not display clear tumor-driving point mutations, or show candidate driving point mutations with no obvious biochemical relationship to the more frequently mutated genes. This genomic landscape probably reflects either an unknown underlying biochemical mechanism playing a key role in CLL or multiple biochemical pathways independently driving the development of this tumor. The elucidation of either scenario will have important consequences on the clinical management of CLL. Herein, we review the recent advances in the definition of the genomic landscape of CLL and the ongoing research to characterize the underlying biochemical events that drive this disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 55 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 30%
Researcher 18 30%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 23%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 5 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 February 2014.
All research outputs
of 13,172,054 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
of 2,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 148,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,172,054 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 148,693 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them