↓ Skip to main content

Rapamycin Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Relationships in Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Oncology Study in Dogs

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2010
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Rapamycin Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Relationships in Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Oncology Study in Dogs
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa C. Paoloni, Christina Mazcko, Elizabeth Fox, Timothy Fan, Susan Lana, William Kisseberth, David M. Vail, Kaylee Nuckolls, Tanasa Osborne, Samuel Yalkowsy, Daniel Gustafson, Yunkai Yu, Liang Cao, Chand Khanna

Abstract

Signaling through the mTOR pathway contributes to growth, progression and chemoresistance of several cancers. Accordingly, inhibitors have been developed as potentially valuable therapeutics. Their optimal development requires consideration of dose, regimen, biomarkers and a rationale for their use in combination with other agents. Using the infrastructure of the Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium many of these complex questions were asked within a relevant population of dogs with osteosarcoma to inform the development of mTOR inhibitors for future use in pediatric osteosarcoma patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Other 18 16%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 32 28%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 32 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 20 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 April 2014.
All research outputs
#3,105,061
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#40,817
of 193,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,356
of 96,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#173
of 696 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 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 193,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 96,046 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 696 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.