↓ Skip to main content

Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancer: the road to personalized medicine?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancer: the road to personalized medicine?
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard D Baird, Carlos Caldas

Abstract

More women die from breast cancer across the world today than from any other type of malignancy. The clinical course of breast cancer varies tremendously between patients. While some of this variability is explained by traditional clinico-pathological factors (including patient age, tumor stage, histological grade and estrogen receptor status), molecular profiling studies have defined breast cancer subtypes with distinct clinical outcomes. This mini-review considers recent studies which have used genomics technologies in an attempt to identify new biomarkers of prognosis and treatment response. These studies highlight the genetic heterogeneity that exists within breast cancers in space and time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 175 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 45 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 08 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,445,829
of 24,229,740 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,008
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,185
of 200,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#21
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,229,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 200,626 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.