↓ Skip to main content

High intratumor genetic heterogeneity is related to worse outcome in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer (0008543X), May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
High intratumor genetic heterogeneity is related to worse outcome in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Published in
Cancer (0008543X), May 2013
DOI 10.1002/cncr.28150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund A. Mroz, Aaron D. Tward, Curtis R. Pickering, Jeffrey N. Myers, Robert L. Ferris, James W. Rocco

Abstract

Although the presence of genetic heterogeneity within the tumors of individual patients is established, it is unclear whether greater heterogeneity predicts a worse outcome. A quantitative measure of genetic heterogeneity based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) data, mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity (MATH), was previously developed and applied to a data set on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Whether this measure correlates with clinical outcome was not previously assessed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Denmark 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 131 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 30%
Researcher 33 24%
Other 10 7%
Student > Master 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 12%
Computer Science 5 4%
Physics and Astronomy 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 21 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 04 October 2013.
All research outputs
#485,392
of 15,542,562 outputs
Outputs from Cancer (0008543X)
#505
of 10,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,896
of 157,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer (0008543X)
#9
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,542,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 157,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.