↓ Skip to main content

The progressive fragmentation of the KIT/PDGFRA wild-type (WT) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
The progressive fragmentation of the KIT/PDGFRA wild-type (WT) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1212-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margherita Nannini, Milena Urbini, Annalisa Astolfi, Guido Biasco, Maria A. Pantaleo

Abstract

Recent advances in molecular biology have revolutionized the concept of KIT/PDGFRA wild type (WT) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) than the past. Indeed, from being defined as GIST without KIT or PDGFRA mutations, we are now faced with the opposite scenario, where KIT/PDGFRA WT GIST are "positively" defined according to their specific molecular alterations. In particular, if until recently KIT/PDGFRA GIST without abnormalities of KIT, PDGFRA, SDH, and the RAS signaling pathway were referred as quadruple WT GIST, today also this small subset of GIST is emerging out as a group of heterogeneous distinct entities with multiple different molecular alterations. Therefore, given this still growing and rapidly evolving scenario, the progressive molecular fragmentation may inevitably lead over the time to the disappearance of KIT/PDGFRA WT GIST, destined to be singularly defined by their molecular fingerprint.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,307
of 4,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,112
of 314,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#48
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 314,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.