↓ Skip to main content

Smoking status impacts microRNA mediated prognosis and lung adenocarcinoma biology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Smoking status impacts microRNA mediated prognosis and lung adenocarcinoma biology
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-14-778
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily A Vucic, Kelsie L Thu, Larissa A Pikor, Katey SS Enfield, John Yee, John C English, Calum E MacAulay, Stephen Lam, Igor Jurisica, Wan L Lam

Abstract

Cigarette smoke is associated with the majority of lung cancers: however, 25% of lung cancer patients are non-smokers, and half of all newly diagnosed lung cancer patients are former smokers. Lung tumors exhibit distinct epidemiological, clinical, pathological, and molecular features depending on smoking status, suggesting divergent mechanisms underlie tumorigenesis in smokers and non-smokers. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are integral contributors to tumorigenesis and mediate biological responses to smoking. Based on the hypothesis that smoking-specific miRNA differences in lung adenocarcinomas reflect distinct tumorigenic processes selected by different smoking and non-smoking environments, we investigated the contribution of miRNA disruption to lung tumor biology and patient outcome in the context of smoking status.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 33%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2014.
All research outputs
#12,845,014
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,691
of 8,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,559
of 260,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#56
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,279 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 260,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.