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 |
Comparison of high resolution melting analysis, pyrosequencing, next generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry to conventional Sanger sequencing for the detection of p.V600E and non-p.V600E BRAFmutations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2407-14-13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michaela Angelika Ihle, Jana Fassunke, Katharina König, Inga Grünewald, Max Schlaak, Nicole Kreuzberg, Lothar Tietze, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus, Reinhard Büttner, Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse |
| Abstract |
The approval of vemurafenib in the US 2011 and in Europe 2012 improved the therapy of not resectable or metastatic melanoma. Patients carrying a substitution of valine to glutamic acid at codon 600 (p.V600E) or a substitution of valine to leucine (p.V600K) in BRAF show complete or partial response. Therefore, the precise identification of the underlying somatic mutations is essential. Herein, we evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of six different methods for the detection of BRAF mutations. |
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 States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 168 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 20% |
| Researcher | 29 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 36 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 34 | 20% |
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 16 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,360,179
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,416
of 8,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,918
of 304,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#73
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,269 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 304,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.