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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Society for immunotherapy of cancer (SITC) statement on the proposed changes to the common rule
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-016-0142-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Howard L. Kaufman, Lisa H. Butterfield, Pierre G. Coulie, Sandra Demaria, Robert L. Ferris, Jérôme Galon, Samir N. Khleif, Ira Mellman, Pamela S. Ohashi, Willem W. Overwijk, Suzanne L. Topalian, Francesco M. Marincola |
| Abstract |
The Common Rule is a set of ethical principles that provide guidance on the management of human subjects taking part in biomedical and behavioral research in the United States. The elements of the Common Rule were initially developed in 1981 following a revision of the Declaration of Helsinki in 1975. Most academic facilities follow the Common Rule in the regulation of clinical trials research. Recently, the government has suggested a revision of the Common Rule to include more contemporary and streamlined oversight of clinical research. In this commentary, the leadership of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) provides their opinion on this plan. While the Society recognizes the considerable contribution of clinical research in supporting progress in tumor immunotherapy and supports the need for revisions to the Common Rule, there is also some concern over certain elements which may restrict access to biospecimens and clinical data at a time when high throughput technologies, computational biology and assay standardization is allowing major advances in understanding cancer biology and providing potential predictive biomarkers of immunotherapy response. The Society values its professional commitment to patients for improving clinical outcomes with tumor immunotherapy and supports continued discussion with all stakeholders before implementing changes to the Common Rule in order to ensure maximal patient protections while promoting continued clinical research at this historic time in cancer research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 31% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 488. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#53,837
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#6
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,130
of 369,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 369,267 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.