↓ 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 X users
patent
12 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
660 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
448 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.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 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 434 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 20%
Researcher 72 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 9%
Student > Master 38 8%
Other 28 6%
Other 91 20%
Unknown 90 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 87 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 77 17%
Computer Science 13 3%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 34 8%
Unknown 101 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,803,658
of 23,253,955 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#1,412
of 12,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,766
of 100,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#5
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,253,955 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 12,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 100,775 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.