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 |
Translating clinical trials from human to veterinary oncology and back
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-015-0631-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irene Fürdös, Judit Fazekas, Josef Singer, Erika Jensen-Jarolim |
| Abstract |
In human medicine clinical trials are legally required for drug development and approval. In contrast, clinical trials in small animal cancer patients are less common and legally perceived as animal experiments. Comparative oncology has been recognized as a method to speed up the development of medications by introducing animal patients with naturally developing tumours. In such cases, using animal patients would generate more robust data, as their spontaneous disease resembles the "real life" situation and thus could be more likely to predict the situation in human disease. This would not only provide veterinary oncology access to the latest developments in medicine before they are available for clinical use in animals, but could also lead to generation of clinical data in animal patients that could be translated to humans. Nevertheless, there are several limitations to practical conduct of clinical trials in veterinary medicine. In this review, the possible application of similar standards of Good Clinical Practice as in human clinical drug development will be discussed in detail, with special consideration of legal and ethical aspects in Europe and the US. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,814,182
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#492
of 4,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,919
of 275,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#5
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 275,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.