↓ Skip to main content

Anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies: the past and the future in clinical application

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2011
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies: the past and the future in clinical application
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-9-196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo A Ascierto, Francesco M Marincola, Antoni Ribas

Abstract

Recently, two studies using ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody (mab) demonstrated improvements in overall survival in the treatment of advanced melanoma. These studies utilized two different schedules of treatment in different patient categories (first and second line of treatment). However, the results were quite similar despite of different dosage used and the combination with dacarbazine in the first line treatment. We reviewed the result of randomized phase II-III clinical studies testing anti-CTLA-4 antibodies (ipilimumab and tremelimumab) for the treatment of melanoma to focus on practical or scientific questions related to the broad utilization of these products in the clinics. These analyses raised some considerations about the future of these compounds, their potential application, dosage, the importance of the schedule (induction/manteinance compared to induction alone) and their role as adjuvants. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody therapy represents the start of a new era in the treatment of advanced melanoma but we are on the steep slope of the learning curve toward the optimization of their utilization either a single agents or in combination.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Denmark 1 1%
France 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 85 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,539,908
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#723
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,533
of 142,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#11
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 142,149 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.