↓ Skip to main content

Proposed new clinicopathological surrogate definitions of luminal A and luminal B (HER2-negative) intrinsic breast cancer subtypes

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Proposed new clinicopathological surrogate definitions of luminal A and luminal B (HER2-negative) intrinsic breast cancer subtypes
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/bcr3679
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maisonneuve P, Disalvatore D, Rotmensz N, Curigliano G, Colleoni M, Dellapasqua S, Pruneri G, Mastropasqua MG, Luini A, Bassi F, Pagani G, Viale G, Goldhirsch A

Abstract

The St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 recognized substantial progress in the pathological characterization of breast cancer subtypes. A useful surrogate definition was developed to distinguish luminal A-like breast cancer from luminal B-like disease based on a combination of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and Ki-67 status, without a requirement for molecular diagnostics. Differences depend upon the choice of the threshold value for Ki-67 and the requirement for substantial PgR positivity. We aimed to verify the suitability of the new surrogate definitions of luminal subtypes in terms of distant disease control in a large series of patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 25 28%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 10 11%

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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,179,521
of 6,338,764 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#208
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,173
of 134,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,338,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 134,574 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.