↓ Skip to main content

Peto’s Paradox: how has evolution solved the problem of cancer prevention?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
84 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Peto’s Paradox: how has evolution solved the problem of cancer prevention?
Published in
BMC Biology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12915-017-0401-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Tollis, Amy M. Boddy, Carlo C. Maley

Abstract

The risk of developing cancer should theoretically increase with both the number of cells and the lifespan of an organism. However, gigantic animals do not get more cancer than humans, suggesting that super-human cancer suppression has evolved numerous times across the tree of life. This is the essence and promise of Peto's Paradox. We discuss what is known about Peto's Paradox and provide hints of what is yet to be discovered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 30 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#311,311
of 18,346,324 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#72
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,029
of 274,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,346,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 274,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them