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 |
Future medical applications of single-cell sequencing in cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gm247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Navin, James Hicks |
| Abstract |
Advances in whole genome amplification and next-generation sequencing methods have enabled genomic analyses of single cells, and these techniques are now beginning to be used to detect genomic lesions in individual cancer cells. Previous approaches have been unable to resolve genomic differences in complex mixtures of cells, such as heterogeneous tumors, despite the importance of characterizing such tumors for cancer treatment. Sequencing of single cells is likely to improve several aspects of medicine, including the early detection of rare tumor cells, monitoring of circulating tumor cells (CTCs), measuring intratumor heterogeneity, and guiding chemotherapy. In this review we discuss the challenges and technical aspects of single-cell sequencing, with a strong focus on genomic copy number, and discuss how this information can be used to diagnose and treat cancer patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 343 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 2% |
| Unknown | 314 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 89 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 76 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 67 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 146 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 68 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 9% |
| Engineering | 13 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 9% |
| Unknown | 44 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 December 2013.
All research outputs
#7,713,861
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,186
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,428
of 122,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 122,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.