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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Natural Killer Cells as Helper Cells in Dendritic Cell Cancer Vaccines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María Betina Pampena, Estrella Mariel Levy |
| Abstract |
Vaccine-based cancer immunotherapy has generated highly variable clinical results due to differing methods of vaccine preparation and variation in patient populations among other lesser factors. Moreover, these clinical responses do not necessarily correspond with the induction of tumor-specific cytotoxic lymphocytes. Here, we review the participation of natural killer (NK) cells as alternative immune components that could cooperate in successful vaccination treatment. NK cells have been described as helper cells in dendritic cell-based cancer vaccines, but the role in other kinds of vaccination strategies (whole cells, peptide, or DNA-based vaccines) is poorly understood. In this article, we address the following issues regarding the role of NK cells in cancer vaccines: NK cell anti-tumor action sites, and the loci of NK cell interaction with other immune cells; descriptions of new data on the memory characteristics of NK cells described in infectious diseases; and finally phenotypical and functional changes after vaccination measured by immunomonitoring in preclinical and clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 14 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 February 2015.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#6,169
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,465
of 361,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#28
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 361,110 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.