↓ Skip to main content

Malignant Transformation ofHymenolepis nanain 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
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
384 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Malignant Transformation ofHymenolepis nanain 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 942 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 384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Russia 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 10 3%
Unknown 353 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 87 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 18%
Student > Bachelor 60 16%
Student > Master 35 9%
Other 26 7%
Other 78 20%
Unknown 29 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 107 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 54 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 29 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 2%
Other 32 8%
Unknown 41 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1477. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,796
of 15,574,460 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#168
of 27,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42
of 286,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#4
of 384 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,574,460 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 27,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 81.0. 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 286,942 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 384 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.