↓ Skip to main content

Mining the pre-diagnostic antibody repertoire of TgMMTV-neu mice to identify autoantibodies useful for the early detection of human breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Mining the pre-diagnostic antibody repertoire of TgMMTV-neu mice to identify autoantibodies useful for the early detection of human breast cancer
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-12-121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianning Mao, Jon Ladd, Ekram Gad, Lauren Rastetter, Melissa M Johnson, Edmond Marzbani, Jennifer S Childs, Hailing Lu, Yushe Dang, Elizabeth Broussard, Sasha E Stanton, Sam M Hanash, Mary L Disis

Abstract

The use of autoantibodies for the early detection of breast cancer has generated much interest as antibodies can be readily assayed in serum when antigen levels are low. Ideally, diagnostic autoantibodies would be identified in individuals who harbored pre-invasive disease/high risk lesions leading to malignancy. Prospectively collected human serum samples from these individuals are rare and not often available for biomarker discovery. We questioned whether transgenic animals could be used to identify cancer-associated autoantibodies present at the earliest stages of the malignant transformation of breast cancer.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 6 20%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,860,027
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#462
of 3,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,946
of 227,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#5
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 227,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.