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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Malignant rhabdoid tumor in the renal allograft of an adult transplant recipient: a unique case of a rare tumor
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13000-017-0677-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Xiong, Tiefen Su, Pengcheng Zhu, Qilin Ao, Qiurong Ruan, Guoping Wang |
| Abstract |
Renal transplant recipients have increased risk for developing malignant diseases because of immunosuppression or donor-to-recipient transmission. Malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT) is a rare, highly aggressive and lethal tumor primarily affecting the kidney of infants and young children. MRT has not been reported in the renal allograft of an adult recipient after kidney transplantation. In this report, a 47-year-old woman who received a kidney transplantation from an infant donor and developed a mass in the transplanted kidney is presented. Pathological examinations revealed a malignant tumor with rhabdoid cells morphologically and the loss of INI1 expression immunohistochemically. The diagnosis of malignant rhabdoid tumor in the transplanted kidney was made. We confirmed that donor-to-recipient malignancy transmission was the cause of MRT in the transplanted kidney by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first case of MRT in an adult renal allograft recipient. This report highlights the importance of the criteria for selection of donors to screen possible malignant tumors transmission. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#762
of 1,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,660
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,136 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 440,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.