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 |
Comparative analysis of cancer vaccine settings for the selection of an effective protocol in mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-11-120 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesca Kalli, Rodolfo Machiorlatti, Florinda Battaglia, Alessia Parodi, Giuseppina Conteduca, Francesca Ferrera, Michele Proietti, Samuele Tardito, Marina Sanguineti, Enrico Millo, Daniela Fenoglio, Raffaele De Palma, Giorgio Inghirami, Gilberto Filaci |
| Abstract |
Cancer vaccines are considered a promising therapeutic approach. However, their clinical results are not yet satisfactory. This may be due to the the difficulty of selection of an efficient tumor associated antigen (TAA) and immunization protocol. Indeed, the weak antigenicity of many TAA impairs the design of robust procedures, therefore a systematic analysis to identify the most efficient TAA is mandatory. Here, we performed a study to compare different gp100 vaccination strategies to identify the best strategy to provide a 100% protection against experimental melanoma in a reproducible manner. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
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 17 September 2013.
All research outputs
#14,170,039
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,772
of 3,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,023
of 193,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 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 3,970 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 50% 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 193,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.