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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Biomarkers of immunotherapy in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma: PD-L1, tumor mutational burden, and beyond
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-018-0314-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason Zhu, Andrew J. Armstrong, Terence W. Friedlander, Won Kim, Sumanta K. Pal, Daniel J. George, Tian Zhang |
| Abstract |
Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1 pathway have greatly changed clinical management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, response rates are low, and biomarkers are needed to predict for treatment response. Immunohistochemical quantification of PD-L1 was developed as a promising biomarker in early clinical trials, but many shortcomings of the four different assays (different antibodies, disparate cellular populations, and different thresholds of positivity) have limited its clinical utility. Further limitations include the use of archival specimens to measure this dynamic biomarker. Indeed, until PD-L1 testing is standardized and can consistently predict treatment outcome, the currently available PD-L1 assays are not clinically useful in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma. Other more promising biomarkers include tumor mutational burden, profiles of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, molecular subtypes, and PD-L2. Potentially, a composite biomarker may be best but will need prospective testing to validate such a biomarker. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | 39% |
| Spain | 12 | 24% |
| Brazil | 3 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 22% |
| Scientists | 10 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 122 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 48 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 12 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,192,689
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#293
of 3,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,228
of 443,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 443,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.