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.
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 |
Cancer Stem Cells in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2017.00112 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ranui Baillie, Swee T. Tan, Tinte Itinteang |
| Abstract |
Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been identified in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC). CSCs possess the ability for perpetual self-renewal and proliferation, producing downstream progenitor cells and cancer cells that drive tumor growth. Studies of many cancer types including OCSCC have identified CSCs using specific markers, but it is still unclear as to where in the stem cell hierarchy these markers fall. This is compounded further by the presence of multiple CSC subtypes within OCSCC, making investigation reliant on the use of multiple markers. This review examines the current knowledge in CSC markers OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, ALDH1, phosphorylated STAT3, CD44, CD24, CD133, and Musashi-1, specifically focusing on their use and validity in OCSCC CSC research and how they may be organized into the CSC hierarchy. OCSCC CSCs also express components of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which suggests CSCs may be novel therapeutic targets by modulation of the RAS using existing medications. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 43 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 54 | 39% |
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 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,318
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,404
of 331,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#60
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 331,648 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 82 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.