↓ Skip to main content

Considerations in the development of circulating tumor cell technology for clinical use

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
293 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 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
Considerations in the development of circulating tumor cell technology for clinical use
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-10-138
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R Parkinson, Nicholas Dracopoli, Brenda Gumbs Petty, Carolyn Compton, Massimo Cristofanilli, Albert Deisseroth, Daniel F Hayes, Gordon Kapke, Prasanna Kumar, Jerry SH Lee, Minetta C Liu, Robert McCormack, Stanislaw Mikulski, Larry Nagahara, Klaus Pantel, Sonia Pearson-White, Elizabeth A Punnoose, Lori T Roadcap, Andrew E Schade, Howard I Scher, Caroline C Sigman, Gary J Kelloff

Abstract

This manuscript summarizes current thinking on the value and promise of evolving circulating tumor cell (CTC) technologies for cancer patient diagnosis, prognosis, and response to therapy, as well as accelerating oncologic drug development. Moving forward requires the application of the classic steps in biomarker development-analytical and clinical validation and clinical qualification for specific contexts of use. To that end, this review describes methods for interactive comparisons of proprietary new technologies, clinical trial designs, a clinical validation qualification strategy, and an approach for effectively carrying out this work through a public-private partnership that includes test developers, drug developers, clinical trialists, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
France 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 300 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 22%
Researcher 60 19%
Student > Master 34 11%
Other 18 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 59 19%
Unknown 58 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 17%
Engineering 46 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 12%
Chemistry 14 4%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 69 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,827,660
of 24,413,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#467
of 4,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,929
of 167,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,413,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 167,168 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.