↓ Skip to main content

A phase I study of combination vaccine treatment of five therapeutic epitope-peptides for metastatic colorectal cancer; safety, immunological response, and clinical outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
A phase I study of combination vaccine treatment of five therapeutic epitope-peptides for metastatic colorectal cancer; safety, immunological response, and clinical outcome
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-12-63
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoichi Hazama, Yusuke Nakamura, Hiroko Takenouchi, Nobuaki Suzuki, Ryouichi Tsunedomi, Yuka Inoue, Yoshihiro Tokuhisa, Norio Iizuka, Shigefumi Yoshino, Kazuyoshi Takeda, Hirokazu Shinozaki, Akira Kamiya, Hiroyuki Furukawa, Masaaki Oka

Abstract

To evaluate the safety of combination vaccine treatment of multiple peptides, phase I clinical trial was conducted for patients with advanced colorectal cancer using five novel HLA-A*2402-restricted peptides, three peptides derived from oncoantigens, ring finger protein 43 (RNF43), 34 kDa-translocase of the outer mitochondrial membrane (TOMM34), and insulin-like growth factor-II mRNA binding protein 3 (KOC1), and the remaining two from angiogenesis factors, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and VEGFR2.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 13%

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 13 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,162,073
of 5,223,646 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#439
of 1,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,575
of 125,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#27
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,223,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,470 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 125,285 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 60% of its contemporaries.