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 |
Evaluation of tumor response to cytokine-induced killer cells therapy in malignant solid tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-014-0215-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao-Dong Li, Mei Ji, Xiao Zheng, Zhong-Hua Ning, Jun Wu, Binfeng Lu, Chang-Ping Wu, Jing-Ting Jiang |
| Abstract |
CIK cells therapy has been evaluated as an adoptive cell immunotherapy for cancer patients, but there still have not been any standardized systems for evaluating the antitumor efficacy yet. The WHO and RECIST criteria have already been established for a few years but not sufficient to fully characterize the activity of immunotherapy. Based on these two criteria, the irRC was proposed for evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy. A variety of bioassays for immune monitoring including the specific and non-specific methods, have been established. We recommend detect levels of various immunocytes, immune molecules and soluble molecules to find the correlations among them and clinicopathological characteristics to establish criteria for immunological classification. We also recommend a paradigm shift for the oncologists in the evaluation of immune therapies to ensure assessment of activity based on clinically relevant criteria and time points. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
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 13 August 2014.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,089
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,862
of 232,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#42
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,185 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 232,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.