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 |
First case of primary intraocular natural killer t-cell lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-015-0158-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kazuichi Maruyama, Hiroshi Kunikata, Sunao Sugita, Manabu Mochizuki, Ryo Ichinohasama, Toru Nakazawa |
| Abstract |
Natural killer cell tumors can be broadly divided by origin into mature-cell and progenitor-cell types. The invasion of nasal-origin natural killer cells into the ophthalmologic field is sometimes observed in patients, but primary ocular natural killer cell tumors are a rare occurrence. A 66 year-old woman without any systemic disease presented with blurred vision due to a severe vitreous opacity in the right eye. Flow cytometric analysis of the vitreous fluid suggested a natural killer cell tumor. Moreover, cytologic examination of vitreal and retinal specimens revealed the infiltration of a natural killer cell tumor, while PCR and immunocytochemistry revealed Epstein-Barr virus infection. The results of a gene rearrangement analysis were positive for IGH, while TCR beta chains were all negative. We examined the patient with whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, and performed a bone marrow examination. These examinations returned no abnormal results. Thorough analysis of vitreal samples is essential when performing vitrectomies for vitreous opacities of unknown cause. Flow cytometric, cytologic, and PCR analysis of vitreal and retinal samples may reveal the presence and cause of severe illness. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,427,926
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#565
of 2,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,582
of 389,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#14
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,519 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 389,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.