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 |
PD-L1 biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer: truth or fiction?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-016-0153-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claud Grigg, Naiyer A. Rizvi |
| Abstract |
Research in cancer immunology is currently accelerating following a series of cancer immunotherapy breakthroughs during the last 5 years. Various monoclonal antibodies which block the interaction between checkpoint molecules PD-1 on immune cells and PD-L1 on cancer cells have been used to successfully treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including some durable responses lasting years. Two drugs, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are now FDA approved for use in certain patients who have failed or progressed on platinum-based or targeted therapies while agents targeting PD-L1, atezolizumab and durvalumab, are approaching the final stages of clinical testing. Despite impressive treatment outcomes in a subset of patients who receive these immune therapies, many patients with NSCLC fail to respond to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and the identification of a biomarker to select these patients remains highly sought after. In this review, we discuss the recent clinical trial results of pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab for NSCLC, and the significance of companion diagnostic testing for tumor PD-L1 expression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 43% |
| Spain | 3 | 21% |
| Turkey | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 265 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 49 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 49 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 79 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 45 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 11% |
| Unknown | 62 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,685,143
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#1,210
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,954
of 337,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 337,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.