↓ Skip to main content

Circulating Tumor Cells: From Theory to Nanotechnology-Based Detection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 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
Circulating Tumor Cells: From Theory to Nanotechnology-Based Detection
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yue Ming, Yuanyuan Li, Haiyan Xing, Minghe Luo, Ziwei Li, Jianhong Chen, Jingxin Mo, Sanjun Shi

Abstract

Cancer stem cells with stem-cell properties are regarded as tumor initiating cells. Sharing stem-cell properties, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are responsible for the development of metastasis, which significant affects CTC analysis in clinical practice. Due to their extremely low occurrence in blood, however, it is challenging to enumerate and analyze CTCs. Nanotechnology is able to address the problems of insufficient capture efficiency and low purity of CTCs owing to the unique structural and functional properties of nanomaterials, showing strong promise for CTC isolation and detection. In this review, we discuss the role of stem-like CTCs in metastases, provide insight into recent progress in CTC isolation and detection approaches using various nanoplatforms, and highlight the role of nanotechnology in the advancement of CTC research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Chemistry 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 27 38%
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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,917,504
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,247
of 16,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,817
of 420,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#66
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 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 16,228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 420,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.