↓ Skip to main content

Endocannabinoids

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 16: Endocannabinoids
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 433)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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.
Chapter title
Endocannabinoids
Chapter number 16
Book title
Endocannabinoids
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20825-1_16
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-920824-4, 978-3-31-920825-1
Authors

Velasco, Guillermo, Sánchez, Cristina, Guzmán, Manuel, Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez, Manuel Guzmán

Editors

Roger G. Pertwee

Abstract

A large body of evidence shows that cannabinoids, in addition to their well-known palliative effects on some cancer-associated symptoms, can reduce tumour growth in animal models of cancer. They do so by modulating key cell signalling pathways involved in the control of cancer cell proliferation and survival. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit angiogenesis and cell proliferation in different types of tumours in laboratory animals. By contrast, little is known about the biological role of the endocannabinoid system in cancer physio-pathology, and several studies suggest that it may be over-activated in cancer. In this review, we discuss our current understanding of cannabinoids as antitumour agents, focusing on recent advances in the molecular mechanisms of action, including resistance mechanisms and opportunities for combination therapy approaches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,107,788
of 13,597,642 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#45
of 433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,405
of 261,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,597,642 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 261,204 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them