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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Breast cancer stem cells: tools and models to rely on
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, June 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2407-9-202 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emmanuelle Charafe-Jauffret, Christophe Ginestier, Daniel Birnbaum |
| Abstract |
There is increasing evidence for the "cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis", which holds that cancers are driven by a cellular component that has stem cell properties, including self-renewal, tumorigenicity and multi-lineage differentiation capacity. Researchers and oncologists see in this model an explanation as to why cancer may be so difficult to cure, as well as a promising ground for novel therapeutic strategies. Given the specific stem cell features of self-renewal and differentiation, which drive tumorigenesis and contribute to cellular heterogeneity, each marker and assay designed to isolate and characterize CSCs has to be functionally validated. In this review, we survey tools and markers available or promising to identify breast CSCs. We review the main models used to study breast CSCs and how they challenge the CSC hypothesis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 1% |
| India | 3 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Unknown | 206 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 25% |
| Researcher | 59 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 115 | 48% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,536,231
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#489
of 8,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,836
of 111,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#5
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 111,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.