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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Detection of Intratumor Heterogeneity in Modern Pathology: A Multisite Tumor Sampling Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2017.00025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesús M. Cortés, Giovanni de Petris, José I. López |
| Abstract |
Current sampling protocols of neoplasms along the digestive tract and in the urinary bladder have to be updated, as they do not respond to the necessities of modern personalized medicine. We show here that an adapted version of multisite tumor sampling (MSTS) is a sustainable model to overcome current deficiencies in digestive and bladder tumors when they are large enough so as to make unaffordable a total sampling. The new method is based on the divide-and-conquer algorithm and includes a slight modification of the MSTS, which proved to be useful very recently in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. This in silico analysis confirms the usefulness of MSTS for detecting intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) in tumors arising in hollow viscera. However, MSTS does not seem to improve routine traditional sampling in detecting tumor budding, extramural venous invasion, and perineural invasion. We conclude that (1) MSTS is the best method for tumor sampling to detect ITH balancing high performance and sustainable cost, (2) MSTS must be adapted to tumor shape and tumor location for an optimal performance. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
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 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,536,772
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,963
of 5,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,972
of 311,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 311,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.