↓ Skip to main content

Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 60,227)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
794 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2091 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
Title
Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions
Published in
Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1260825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristian Tomasetti, Bert Vogelstein

Abstract

Some tissue types give rise to human cancers millions of times more often than other tissue types. Although this has been recognized for more than a century, it has never been explained. Here, we show that the lifetime risk of cancers of many different types is strongly correlated (0.81) with the total number of divisions of the normal self-renewing cells maintaining that tissue's homeostasis. These results suggest that only a third of the variation in cancer risk among tissues is attributable to environmental factors or inherited predispositions. The majority is due to "bad luck," that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells. This is important not only for understanding the disease but also for designing strategies to limit the mortality it causes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,248 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 2,091 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 37 2%
Germany 19 <1%
United Kingdom 17 <1%
France 6 <1%
Switzerland 5 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
Italy 5 <1%
Denmark 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Other 41 2%
Unknown 1948 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 423 20%
Researcher 415 20%
Student > Bachelor 185 9%
Student > Master 167 8%
Other 100 5%
Other 390 19%
Unknown 411 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 595 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 345 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 281 13%
Unspecified 116 6%
Computer Science 46 2%
Other 297 14%
Unknown 411 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3046. 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 02 April 2019.
All research outputs
#211
of 12,826,674 outputs
Outputs from Science
#15
of 60,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7
of 290,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#2
of 1,057 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,826,674 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 60,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 290,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,057 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.