↓ Skip to main content

Solid type primary intraosseous squamous cell carcinoma in a cat

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Solid type primary intraosseous squamous cell carcinoma in a cat
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12917-018-1344-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darja Pavlin, Tamara Dolenšek, Tanja Švara, Ana Nemec

Abstract

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common nonodontogenic oral tumor in cats. In the jaw, it usually presents as an ulceroproliferative lesion associated with enlargement of the affected bone. This report describes the case of a cat in which clinical and radiographic findings of a mandibular swelling were suggestive of an aggressive process, but the oral mucosa was unaffected. The results of histopathological and immunohistochemical examination of the samples obtained from the intraosseous lesion were consistent with SCC. The animal was euthanized 5 months after initial presentation as a result of the severe progression of the disease, and no other primary tumors were identified at necropsy. Based on the clinicopathological, microscopic, and immunohistochemical staining features, as well as the absence of a primary tumor at a distant site, we propose that the term, solid type primary intraosseous SCC (PIOSCC), be used to describe this neoplasia, as it shares similar features with human PIOSCC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 51%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,580,267
of 23,263,851 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#645
of 3,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,511
of 442,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#20
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,263,851 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,093 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 442,372 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.