↓ Skip to main content

Burrowing through the Heterogeneity: Review of Mouse Models of PTCL-NOS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Burrowing through the Heterogeneity: Review of Mouse Models of PTCL-NOS
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E. Cutucache, Tyler A. Herek

Abstract

Currently, there are 19 different peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) entities recognized by the World Health Organization; however, ~70% of PTCL diagnoses fall within one of three subtypes [i.e., peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma]. PTCL-NOS is a grouping of extra-thymic neoplasms that represent a challenging and heterogeneous subset of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Research into peripheral T-cell lymphomas has been cumbersome as the lack of defining cytogenetic, histological, and molecular features has stymied diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. Similarly, the lacks of genetically manipulated murine models that faithfully recapitulate disease characteristics were absent prior to the turn of the century. Herein, we review the literature concerning existing mouse models for PTLC-NOS, while paying particular attention to the etiology of this heterogeneous disease.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 38%
Researcher 2 25%
Unspecified 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,313
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,247
of 330,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#29
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 330,660 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.