↓ Skip to main content

Proposal of a hybrid approach for tumor progression and tumor-induced angiogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Proposal of a hybrid approach for tumor progression and tumor-induced angiogenesis
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12976-015-0009-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricio Cumsille, Aníbal Coronel, Carlos Conca, Cristóbal Quiñinao, Carlos Escudero

Abstract

One of the main challenges in cancer modelling is to improve the knowledge of tumor progression in areas related to tumor growth, tumor-induced angiogenesis and targeted therapies efficacy. For this purpose, incorporate the expertise from applied mathematicians, biologists and physicians is highly desirable. Despite the existence of a very wide range of models, involving many stages in cancer progression, few models have been proposed to take into account all relevant processes in tumor progression, in particular the effect of systemic treatments and angiogenesis. Composite biological experiments, both in vitro and in vivo, in addition with mathematical modelling can provide a better understanding of theses aspects. In this work we proposed that a rational experimental design associated with mathematical modelling could provide new insights into cancer progression. To accomplish this task, we reviewed mathematical models and cancer biology literature, describing in detail the basic principles of mathematical modelling. We also analyze how experimental data regarding tumor cells proliferation and angiogenesis in vitro may fit with mathematical modelling in order to reconstruct in vivo tumor evolution. Additionally, we explained the mathematical methodology in a comprehensible way in order to facilitate its future use by the scientific community.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Engineering 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,431,953
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#246
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,202
of 263,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.