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 |
Proliferative potential and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-019-0506-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarabjot Pabla, Jeffrey M. Conroy, Mary K. Nesline, Sean T. Glenn, Antonios Papanicolau-Sengos, Blake Burgher, Jacob Hagen, Vincent Giamo, Jonathan Andreas, Felicia L. Lenzo, Wang Yirong, Grace K. Dy, Edwin Yau, Amy Early, Hongbin Chen, Wiam Bshara, Katherine G. Madden, Keisuke Shirai, Konstantin Dragnev, Laura J. Tafe, Daniele Marin, Jason Zhu, Jeff Clarke, Matthew Labriola, Shannon McCall, Tian Zhang, Matthew Zibelman, Pooja Ghatalia, Isabel Araujo-Fernandez, Arun Singavi, Ben George, Andrew Craig MacKinnon, Jonathan Thompson, Rajbir Singh, Robin Jacob, Lynn Dressler, Mark Steciuk, Oliver Binns, Deepa Kasuganti, Neel Shah, Marc Ernstoff, Kunle Odunsi, Razelle Kurzrock, Mark Gardner, Lorenzo Galluzzi, Carl Morrison |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 10 | 42% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 42% |
| Scientists | 7 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 35 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,598,864
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#716
of 3,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,882
of 447,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#21
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 447,939 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.