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 |
Do BRAF inhibitors select for populations with different disease progression kinetics?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-11-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Ester Simeone, Antonio Maria Grimaldi, Marcello Curvietto, Assunta Esposito, Giuseppe Palmieri, Nicola Mozzillo |
| Abstract |
Ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Preliminary data suggest that patients who fail BRAF inhibitor treatment experience a very rapid progression of disease. Such selectivity for more rapid disease progression may mean these patients do not receive the same benefit from subsequent treatment with ipilimumab as patients without prior BRAF inhibitor treatment. The current challenge is focused on how to identify and approach the two populations of fast and slow progressors and recent hypothesis suggest that treatment choice could be guided by baseline risk factors. However, no data have yet defined which the best sequence is and more research is needed to identify predictors of response in patients with metastatic melanoma to help guide whether a BRAF inhibitor or ipilimumab should be used first in sequential therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
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 03 May 2013.
All research outputs
#7,425,026
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,230
of 3,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,956
of 195,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#27
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. 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 195,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.