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 |
Duodenal mucosal risk markers in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: effects of celecoxib/ursodeoxycholic acid co-treatment and comparison with patient controls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-8-181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bjorn WH van Heumen, Hennie MJ Roelofs, René HM te Morsche, Fokko M Nagengast, Wilbert HM Peters |
| Abstract |
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a disease characterized by the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomatous polyps in the colorectum early in life. Virtually all patients with FAP will develop colorectal cancer before the age of 40 to 50 years, unless prophylactic colectomy is performed, which significantly improves their prognosis. The mortality pattern has changed and duodenal cancer now is one of the main cancer-related causes of death in these patients. Practically all patients with FAP develop premalignant duodenal adenomas, which may develop to duodenal cancer in approximately 3-7% of patients. Duodenal cancer in patients with FAP has a poor prognosis. The clinical challenge is to identify patients at high-risk for duodenal carcinoma. Chemoprevention would be desirable to avoid duodenectomy. The main goal of this study is to identify risk markers in normal duodenal mucosa of patients with FAP, that could help identify patients at increased risk for malignant transformation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,435,621
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,076
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,664
of 302,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#32
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 302,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.