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 |
Clinical validation of the gastrointestinal NET grading system: Ki67 index criteria of the WHO 2010 classification is appropriate to predict metastasis or recurrence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-1596-8-65 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takeshi Yamaguchi, Takahiro Fujimori, Shigeki Tomita, Kazuhito Ichikawa, Hiroyuki Mitomi, Kazuya Ohno, Yosuke Shida, Hiroyuki Kato |
| Abstract |
In the WHO 2010 classification, the neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are subdivided by their mitotic index or Ki67 index into either G1 or G2 NETs. Tumors with a Ki67 index of <2% are classified as G1 and those with 3-20% are classified as G2. However, the assessment of tumors with Ki67 index of greater than 2% and less than or equal to 3% is still unclear. To resolve the problem, we validated the Ki67 index criteria of gastrointestinal NETs of the WHO 2010 classification. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,168,910
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#417
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,856
of 196,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 196,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 58% of its contemporaries.