↓ Skip to main content

Malignant Transformation of Hymenolepis nana in a Human Host

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Malignant Transformation of Hymenolepis nana in a Human Host
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1505892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atis Muehlenbachs, Julu Bhatnagar, Carlos A. Agudelo, Alicia Hidron, Mark L. Eberhard, Blaine A. Mathison, Michael A. Frace, Akira Ito, Maureen G. Metcalfe, Dominique C. Rollin, Govinda S. Visvesvara, Cau D. Pham, Tara L. Jones, Patricia W. Greer, Alejandro Vélez Hoyos, Peter D. Olson, Lucy R. Diazgranados, Sherif R. Zaki

Abstract

Neoplasms occur naturally in invertebrates but are not known to develop in tapeworms. We observed nests of monomorphic, undifferentiated cells in samples from lymph-node and lung biopsies in a man infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The morphologic features and invasive behavior of the cells were characteristic of cancer, but their small size suggested a nonhuman origin. A polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay targeting eukaryotes identified Hymenolepis nana DNA. Although the cells were unrecognizable as tapeworm tissue, immunohistochemical staining and probe hybridization labeled the cells in situ. Comparative deep sequencing identified H. nana structural genomic variants that are compatible with mutations described in cancer. Invasion of human tissue by abnormal, proliferating, genetically altered tapeworm cells is a novel disease mechanism that links infection and cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 765 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 4%
Russian Federation 2 1%
Japan 2 1%
Finland 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Czech Republic 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 128 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 66 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 40%
Student > Bachelor 47 30%
Student > Master 32 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 16%
Other 76 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 96 61%
Medicine and Dentistry 94 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 24%
Unspecified 25 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 12%
Other 37 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1334. 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 10 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,569
of 12,153,342 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#98
of 24,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55
of 253,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#4
of 395 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,153,342 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 24,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.2. 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 253,559 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 395 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 98% of its contemporaries.