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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
High expression of ETS2 predicts poor prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia and may guide treatment decisions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-017-1260-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lin Fu, Huaping Fu, Qingyun Wu, Yifan Pang, Keman Xu, Lei Zhou, Jianlin Qiao, Xiaoyan Ke, Kailin Xu, Jinlong Shi |
| Abstract |
ETS2 is a downstream effector of the RAS/RAF/ERK pathway, which plays a critical role in the development of malignant tumor. However, the clinical impact of ETS2 expression in AML remains unknown. In this study, we evaluated the prognostic significance of ETS2 expression using two relatively large cohorts of AML patients. In the first cohort, compared to low expression of ETS2 (ETS2 (low)), high expression of ETS2 (ETS2 (high)) showed significant shorter OS, EFS and RFS in the current treatments including the allogeneic HCT group (n = 72) and the chemotherapy group (n = 100). Notably, among ETS2 (high) patients, those received allogeneic HCT had longer OS, EFS and RFS than those with chemotherapy alone (allogeneic HCT, n = 39 vs. chemotherapy, n = 47), but treatment modules play insignificant role in the survival of ETS2 (low) patients (allogeneic HCT, n = 33 vs. chemotherapy, n = 53). Moreover, gene/microRNA expression data provides insights into the biological changes associated with varying ETS2 expression levels in AML. The prognostic value of ETS2 was further validated in the second AML cohort (n = 329). Our results indicate that ETS2 (high) is a poor prognostic factor in AML and may guide treatment decisions towards allogeneic HCT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 48% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,171,423
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,812
of 4,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,090
of 316,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#50
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 316,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.