↓ Skip to main content

Protein-Based Multiplex Assays: Mock Presubmissions to the US Food and Drug Administration

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Chemistry, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Protein-Based Multiplex Assays: Mock Presubmissions to the US Food and Drug Administration
Published in
Clinical Chemistry, December 2009
DOI 10.1373/clinchem.2009.140087
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. E. Regnier, S. J. Skates, M. Mesri, H. Rodriguez, Z. Tezak, M. V. Kondratovich, M. A. Alterman, J. D. Levin, D. Roscoe, E. Reilly, J. Callaghan, K. Kelm, D. Brown, R. Philip, S. A. Carr, D. C. Liebler, S. J. Fisher, P. Tempst, T. Hiltke, L. G. Kessler, C. R. Kinsinger, D. F. Ransohoff, E. Mansfield, N. L. Anderson

Abstract

As a part of ongoing efforts of the NCI-FDA Interagency Oncology Task Force subcommittee on molecular diagnostics, members of the Clinical Proteomic Technology Assessment for Cancer program of the National Cancer Institute have submitted 2 protein-based multiplex assay descriptions to the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety, US Food and Drug Administration. The objective was to evaluate the analytical measurement criteria and studies needed to validate protein-based multiplex assays. Each submission described a different protein-based platform: a multiplex immunoaffinity mass spectrometry platform for protein quantification, and an immunological array platform quantifying glycoprotein isoforms. Submissions provided a mutually beneficial way for members of the proteomics and regulatory communities to identify the analytical issues that the field should address when developing protein-based multiplex clinical assays.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
France 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 41%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 16%
Other 8 13%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Chemistry 6 10%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%

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 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,237,118
of 12,538,991 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry
#1,959
of 2,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,025
of 156,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,538,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 156,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.