↓ Skip to main content

Difference in prognostic values of maximal standardized uptake value on fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and cyclooxygenase-2 expression between lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell…

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Difference in prognostic values of maximal standardized uptake value on fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and cyclooxygenase-2 expression between lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-12-343
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katsuhiko Shimizu, Ai Maeda, Takuro Yukawa, Yuji Nojima, Shinsuke Saisho, Riki Okita, Masao Nakata

Abstract

The maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for primary tumors is correlated with clinicopathological and prognostic factors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. However, previous investigations have discussed the role of SUVmax without distinguishing among the histological subtypes of lung cancer. Herein, we investigated the correlations among the SUVmax on FDG-PET, clinicopathological or prognostic factors, and the expression of tumor angiogenic biomarkers according to histological subtypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 9 53%
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 03 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,310,081
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#610
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,786
of 258,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#36
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 258,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.