↓ Skip to main content

Prospective Validation Obtained in a Similar Group of Patients and with Similar High Throughput Biological Tests Failed to Confirm Signatures for Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy and Survival…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Prospective Validation Obtained in a Similar Group of Patients and with Similar High Throughput Biological Tests Failed to Confirm Signatures for Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy and Survival in Advanced NSCLC: A Prospective Study from the European Lung Cancer Working Party
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2014.00386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thierry Berghmans, Lieveke Ameye, Jean-Jacques Lafitte, Benoît Colinet, Alexis Cortot, Ingrid CsToth, Stéphane Holbrechts, Jacques Lecomte, Céline Mascaux, Anne-Pascale Meert, Marianne Paesmans, Michel Richez, Arnaud Scherpereel, Christian Tulippe, Luc Willems, Tiffany Dernies, Nathalie Leclercq, Jean-Paul Sculier, for the European Lung Cancer Working Party

Abstract

Cisplatin doublets are standard 1st line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without accurate predictor for response and survival, but important toxicity. Our aims were to identify predictive (for response) and prognostic (for survival) biological signatures in patients with NSCLC using messenger RNAs (mRNA) and miRNA expression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Engineering 2 11%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,784,715
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,655
of 22,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,231
of 361,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#50
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,544 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 361,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.