↓ Skip to main content

The viable circulating tumor cells with cancer stem cells feature, where is the way out?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
The viable circulating tumor cells with cancer stem cells feature, where is the way out?
Published in
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13046-018-0685-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Y. T. Luo, J. Cheng, X. Feng, S. J. He, Y. W. Wang, Q. Huang

Abstract

With cancer stem cells (CSCs) became the research hotspot, emerging studies attempt to reveal the functions of these special subsets in tumorigenesis. Although various approaches have been used in CSCs researches, only a few could really reflect or simulate the microenvironment in vivo. At present, CSCs theories are still difficult to apply for clinical remedy because CSCs subpopulations are always hard to identify and trace. Thus an ideal approach for clinicians and researchers is urgently needed. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), as the method of noninvasive-liquid biopsy, could be detected in the peripheral blood (PB) from many tumors and even could be treated as procurators for CSCs deeper researches from patient-derived sample. However, CTCs, as a diagnostic marker, also raise much controversy over theirs clinical value. Mechanisms causing CTCs to shed from the tumor have not been fully characterized, thus it is unclear whether CTCs represent the entire makeup of cancer cells in the tumor or only a subset. The heterogeneity of CTCs also caused different clinical outcomes. To overcome these unsolved problems, recently, CTC researches are not just depend on enumerations, whereas those CTC subsets that could expand in vitro may play a pivotal role in the metastatic cascade. Here, we retrospect the CTC developmental history and discourse upon the enrichment of viable CTCs in functional assays, probe the further avenue at the crossroad.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Researcher 8 17%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 35%
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 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#1,462
of 2,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,053
of 343,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,380 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 343,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.