| Title |
A braided cancer river connects tumor heterogeneity and precision medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40169-016-0123-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James J. Hsieh, Emily H. Cheng |
| Abstract |
With the ever-increasing complexity of tumor heterogeneity (TH) discovered through cancer genome sequencing, it is apparent that TH has become the biggest hurdle for precision cancer therapeutics. Through studying the genomics of exceptional responders to targeted therapeutic agents in kidney cancer, we demonstrated parallel convergent gene/pathway/capability/function evolution of kidney cancer in the context of TH, which prompted us to propose a new cancer evolution model "the braided cancer river model". Based on this model, we might be able to outsmart a given cancer type within an individual patient through simultaneously inhibiting preferred parallel pathways or sequential nodes. Thus, the goals of this perspective are to define tumor heterogeneity, discuss tumor evolution, introduce braided cancer river model, and improve precision medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
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 > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#433
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,799
of 322,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 322,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.