↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Molecular Landscape of Endometrial Cancer through Next Generation Sequencing: What We Have Learned so Far?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2016
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
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Understanding Molecular Landscape of Endometrial Cancer through Next Generation Sequencing: What We Have Learned so Far?
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00409
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siti-Syazani Suhaimi, Nurul-Syakima Ab Mutalib, Rahman Jamal

Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is among the most common gynecological cancers affecting women worldwide. Despite the early detection and rather high overall survival rate, around 20% of the cases recur with poor prognosis. The Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology, also known as massively parallel sequencing, symbolizes a high-throughput, fast, sensitive and accurate way to study the molecular landscape of a cancer and this has indeed revolutionized endometrial cancer research. Understanding the potential, advantages, and limitations of NGS will be crucial for the healthcare providers and scientists in providing the genome-driven care in this era of precision medicine and pharmacogenomics. This mini review aimed to compile and critically summarize the recent findings contributed by NGS technology pertaining to EC. Importantly, we also discussed the potential of this technology for fundamental discovery research, individualized therapy, screening of at-risk individual and early diagnosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Professor 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Unknown 6 26%
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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,867,424
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,237
of 16,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,519
of 311,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#73
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 311,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.