↓ Skip to main content

Improved blood tests for cancer screening: general or specific?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Improved blood tests for cancer screening: general or specific?
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-11-499
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian A Cree

Abstract

Diagnosis of cancer at an early stage leads to improved survival. However, most current blood tests detect single biomarkers that are of limited suitability for screening, and existing screening programmes look only for cancers of one particular type. A new approach is needed. Recent developments suggest the possibility of blood-based screening for multiple tumour types. It may be feasible to develop a high-sensitivity general screen for cancer using multiple proteins and nucleic acids present in the blood of cancer patients, based on the biological characteristics of cancer. Positive samples in the general screen would be submitted automatically for secondary screening using tests to help define the likelihood of cancer and provide some indication of its type. Only those at high risk would be referred for further clinical assessment to permit early treatment and mitigate potential overdiagnosis. While the assays required for each step exist, they have not been used in this way. Recent experience of screening for breast, cervical and ovarian cancers suggest that there is likely to be widespread acceptance of such a strategy.

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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 36%
Other 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Philosophy 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,062,992
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,490
of 8,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,858
of 239,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#10
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,239 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 239,731 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 77% 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 88% of its contemporaries.