| Title |
Clinical proteomic biomarkers: relevant issues on study design & technical considerations in biomarker development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2001-1326-3-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Frantzi, Akshay Bhat, Agnieszka Latosinska |
| Abstract |
Biomarker research is continuously expanding in the field of clinical proteomics. A combination of different proteomic-based methodologies can be applied depending on the specific clinical context of use. Moreover, current advancements in proteomic analytical platforms are leading to an expansion of biomarker candidates that can be identified. Specifically, mass spectrometric techniques could provide highly valuable tools for biomarker research. Ideally, these advances could provide with biomarkers that are clinically applicable for disease diagnosis and/ or prognosis. Unfortunately, in general the biomarker candidates fail to be implemented in clinical decision making. To improve on this current situation, a well-defined study design has to be established driven by a clear clinical need, while several checkpoints between the different phases of discovery, verification and validation have to be passed in order to increase the probability of establishing valid biomarkers. In this review, we summarize the technical proteomic platforms that are available along the different stages in the biomarker discovery pipeline, exemplified by clinical applications in the field of bladder cancer biomarker research. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 40 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#337
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,723
of 238,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 66% 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 238,665 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 52% 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.