↓ Skip to main content

Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
Published in
BMC Cancer, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Tournier, Caroline Chapusot, Emilie Courcet, Laurent Martin, Côme Lepage, Jean Faivre, Françoise Piard

Abstract

In colorectal carcinoma, extensive gene promoter hypermethylation is called the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). Explaining why studies on CIMP and survival yield conflicting results is essential. Most experiments to measure DNA methylation rely on the sodium bisulfite conversion of unmethylated cytosines into uracils. No study has evaluated the performance of bisulfite conversion and methylation levels from matched cryo-preserved and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) samples using pyrosequencing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Master 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 4 10%

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 13 January 2012.
All research outputs
#7,762,238
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,222
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,890
of 223,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#135
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 223,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.