↓ Skip to main content

Gazelles, unicorns, and dragons battle cancer through the Nanotechnology Startup Challenge

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Nanotechnology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 218)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Gazelles, unicorns, and dragons battle cancer through the Nanotechnology Startup Challenge
Published in
Cancer Nanotechnology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12645-016-0017-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemarie Truman, Cody J. Locke

Abstract

On March 4th, 2016, Springer's Cancer Nanotechnology office promoted the launch of the Nanotechnology Startup Challenge in Cancer (NSC (2) ). This innovation-development model is a partnership among our company, the Center for Advancing Innovation (CAI), MedImmune, the global biologics arm of AstraZeneca, and multiple institutes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NSC (2) "crowdsources" talent from around the world to launch startups with near-term, commercially viable cancer nanotechnology inventions, which were developed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). Crowdsourcing is a process in which one uses the internet to engage a large group of people in an activity, such as NSC (2) . For this initiative, CAI engaged universities, industry professionals, foundations, investors, relevant media outlets, seasoned entrepreneurs, and life sciences membership organizations to request that they participate in the challenge. From this outreach, fifty-six key thought leaders have enrolled in NSC (2) as judges, mentors, and/or advisors to challenge teams (http://www.nscsquared.org/judges.html). Along with crowdsourcing talent to bolt startups around NIH inventions, NSC (2) will also catalyze the launch of companies around "third-party" cancer nanotechnology inventions, which were conceived and developed outside of the NIH. Twenty-eight robust teams were accepted to the challenge on March 14th, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 6 25%
Computer Science 3 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,825,434
of 24,255,619 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Nanotechnology
#6
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,376
of 348,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Nanotechnology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,255,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 348,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.