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 |
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had poor clinical characteristics but showed no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-016-0960-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guanqiao Li, Shiping Yang, Jia Yao, Zhenping Wang, Guangyu Yao, Mingfeng Liu, Changsheng Ye |
| Abstract |
It is controversial for prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. To better understand the difference between IMPC and IDC prognoses, we conducted this retrospective study. Data from 33 patients with IMPC were retrospectively reviewed, and the clinicopathologic characteristics and survival status were compared with those of 347 patients with IDC who were treated during the same period. The IMPC cases were of larger tumor size, greater proportion of nodal involvement, and an increased incidence of lymphovascular invasion compared with IDC cases. The overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were not significantly different between IMPC and IDC. The 3-year OS rate was 97 vs 94.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. The 3-year FFS rate was 87.9 vs 86.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. For IMPC patients, the 3-year LRFS rate was 93.9 % and in IDC patients was 89.0 %. The 3-year DMFS rates of IMPC patients was 90.9 % and IDC patients was 89 %. IMPC had poor clinical characteristics, but it showed no difference in OS, FFS, LRFS, and DMFS compare with IDC. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 15 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,931,166
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#525
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,573
of 367,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 367,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.