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 |
Emerging concepts in liquid biopsies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0840-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samantha Perakis, Michael R. Speicher |
| Abstract |
Characterizing and monitoring tumor genomes with blood samples could achieve significant improvements in precision medicine. As tumors shed parts of themselves into the circulation, analyses of circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA, and tumor-derived exosomes, often referred to as "liquid biopsies", may enable tumor genome characterization by minimally invasive means. Indeed, multiple studies have described how molecular information about parent tumors can be extracted from these components. Here, we briefly summarize current technologies and then elaborate on emerging novel concepts that may further propel the field. We address normal and detectable mutation levels in the context of our current knowledge regarding the gradual accumulation of mutations during aging and in light of technological limitations. Finally, we discuss whether liquid biopsies are ready to be used in routine clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 384 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 17% |
| Researcher | 64 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 50 | 13% |
| Unknown | 97 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 85 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 57 | 15% |
| Engineering | 16 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 10% |
| Unknown | 118 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 22 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,264,449
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#884
of 3,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,111
of 309,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#24
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 309,974 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 63 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 61% of its contemporaries.