↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of PAM50 Intrinsic Subtyping with Immunohistochemistry and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Tamoxifen-Treated Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Cancer Research, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
patent
11 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
610 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
421 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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 Comparison of PAM50 Intrinsic Subtyping with Immunohistochemistry and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Tamoxifen-Treated Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, October 2010
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-1282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torsten O. Nielsen, Joel S. Parker, Samuel Leung, David Voduc, Mark Ebbert, Tammi Vickery, Sherri R. Davies, Jacqueline Snider, Inge J. Stijleman, Jerry Reed, Maggie C.U. Cheang, Elaine R. Mardis, Charles M. Perou, Philip S. Bernard, Matthew J. Ellis

Abstract

To compare clinical, immunohistochemical (IHC), and gene expression models of prognosis applicable to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks in a large series of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers from patients uniformly treated with adjuvant tamoxifen.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 407 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 88 21%
Researcher 72 17%
Student > Master 37 9%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Other 27 6%
Other 93 22%
Unknown 68 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 75 18%
Computer Science 13 3%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 38 9%
Unknown 77 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,759,855
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#1,369
of 12,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,686
of 99,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#5
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 99,820 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 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 94% of its contemporaries.