↓ Skip to main content

Multi-scale Modeling in Clinical Oncology: Opportunities and Barriers to Success

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Biomedical Engineering, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Multi-scale Modeling in Clinical Oncology: Opportunities and Barriers to Success
Published in
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10439-016-1691-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas E. Yankeelov, Gary An, Oliver Saut, E. Georg Luebeck, Aleksander S. Popel, Benjamin Ribba, Paolo Vicini, Xiaobo Zhou, Jared A. Weis, Kaiming Ye, Guy M. Genin

Abstract

Hierarchical processes spanning several orders of magnitude of both space and time underlie nearly all cancers. Multi-scale statistical, mathematical, and computational modeling methods are central to designing, implementing and assessing treatment strategies that account for these hierarchies. The basic science underlying these modeling efforts is maturing into a new discipline that is close to influencing and facilitating clinical successes. The purpose of this review is to capture the state-of-the-art as well as the key barriers to success for multi-scale modeling in clinical oncology. We begin with a summary of the long-envisioned promise of multi-scale modeling in clinical oncology, including the synthesis of disparate data types into models that reveal underlying mechanisms and allow for experimental testing of hypotheses. We then evaluate the mathematical techniques employed most widely and present several examples illustrating their application as well as the current gap between pre-clinical and clinical applications. We conclude with a discussion of what we view to be the key challenges and opportunities for multi-scale modeling in clinical oncology.

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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Mathematics 4 6%
Computer Science 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#21,155,664
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#2
of 2 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,835
of 373,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 373,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.