↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of ultra-deep targeted sequencing for personalized breast cancer care

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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.
Title
Evaluation of ultra-deep targeted sequencing for personalized breast cancer care
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/bcr3584
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Harismendy, Richard B Schwab, Hakan Alakus, Shawn E Yost, Hiroko Matsui, Farnaz Hasteh, Anne M Wallace, Hannah L Park, Lisa Madlensky, Barbara Parker, Philip M Carpenter, Kristen Jepsen, Hoda Anton-Culver, Kelly A Frazer

Abstract

The increasing number of targeted therapies, together with a deeper understanding of cancer genetics and drug response, have prompted major healthcare centers to implement personalized treatment approaches relying on high-throughput tumor DNA sequencing. However, the optimal way to implement this transformative methodology is not yet clear. Current assays may miss important clinical information such as the mutation allelic fraction, the presence of sub-clones or chromosomal rearrangements, or the distinction between inherited variants and somatic mutations. Here, we present the evaluation of ultra-deep targeted sequencing (UDT-Seq) to generate and interpret the molecular profile of 38 breast cancer patients from two academic medical centers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Computer Science 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,046,566
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#805
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,902
of 320,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#14
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 320,151 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 63% of its contemporaries.