↓ Skip to main content

Current Understanding of Circulating Tumor Cells – Potential Value in Malignancies of the Central Nervous System

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Current Understanding of Circulating Tumor Cells – Potential Value in Malignancies of the Central Nervous System
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lukasz A. Adamczyk, Hannah Williams, Aleksandra Frankow, Hayley Patricia Ellis, Harry R. Haynes, Claire Perks, Jeff M. P. Holly, Kathreena M. Kurian

Abstract

Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the blood via so-called "liquid biopsies" carries enormous clinical potential in malignancies of the central nervous system (CNS) because of the potential to follow disease evolution with a blood test, without the need for repeat neurosurgical procedures with their inherent risk of patient morbidity. To date, studies in non-CNS malignancies, particularly in breast cancer, show increasing reproducibility of detection methods for these rare tumor cells in the circulation. However, no method has yet received full recommendation to use in clinical practice, in part because of lack of a sufficient evidence base regarding clinical utility. In CNS malignancies, one of the main challenges is finding a suitable biomarker for identification of these cells, because automated systems, such as the widely used Cell Search system, are reliant on markers, such as the epithelial cell adhesion molecule, which are not present in CNS tumors. This review examines methods for CTC enrichment and detection, and reviews the progress in non-CNS tumors and the potential for using this technique in human brain tumors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 14%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Chemistry 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,930,764
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,188
of 13,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,933
of 268,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#30
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 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 13,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. 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 268,908 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 51% of its contemporaries.