The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 |
Liquid Biopsy in Clinical Management of Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2018.00009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ivana Bratić Hench, Jürgen Hench, Markus Tolnay |
| Abstract |
Examination of tumor molecular characteristics by liquid biopsy is likely to greatly influence personalized cancer patient management. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and tumor-derived exosomes, all collectively referred to as "liquid biopsies," are not only a modality to monitor treatment efficacy, disease progression, and emerging therapy resistance mechanisms, but they also assess tumor heterogeneity and evolution in real time. We review the literature concerning the examination of ctDNA and CTC in a diagnostic setting, evaluating their prognostic, predictive, and monitoring capabilities. We discuss the advantages and limitations of various leading ctDNA/CTC analysis technologies. Finally, guided by the results of clinical trials, we discuss the readiness of cell-free DNA and CTC as routine biomarkers in the context of various common types of neoplastic disease. At this moment, one cannot conclude whether or not liquid biopsy will become a mainstay in oncology practice. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 193 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 46 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 60 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,063,787
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,924
of 5,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,016
of 440,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#47
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 440,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 52% of its contemporaries.