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 |
Potential sources of interference on Abeta immunoassays in biological samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/alzrt142 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hugo Vanderstichele, Erik Stoops, Eugeen Vanmechelen, Andreas Jeromin |
| Abstract |
Therapeutic products that depend on the use of an in vitro diagnostic biomarker test to confirm their effectiveness are increasingly being developed. Use of biomarkers is particularly meaningful in the context of selecting the patient population where the therapeutic treatment is believed to be efficacious (patient enrichment). Currently available 'research-use-only' assays for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis all suffer from non-analyte and analyte-specific interferences. The impact of these interferences on the outcome of the assays is not well understood. The confounding factors are hampering correct value determination in biological samples and are intrinsic to the assay concept, the assay design, the presence in the sample of heterophilic antibodies and auto-antibodies, or might be the result of the therapeutic approach. This review focuses on the importance of assay interferences and considers how these might be minimized with the final aim of making the assays more acceptable as in vitro diagnostic biomarker tests for theranostic use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 39% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 4 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,960,052
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,255
of 1,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,468
of 193,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.