↓ Skip to main content

Matrix metalloproteinases in cancer: their value as diagnostic and prognostic markers and therapeutic targets

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
206 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Matrix metalloproteinases in cancer: their value as diagnostic and prognostic markers and therapeutic targets
Published in
Tumor Biology, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13277-013-0842-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elin Hadler-Olsen, Jan-Olof Winberg, Lars Uhlin-Hansen

Abstract

Biomarkers are used as tools in cancer diagnostics and in treatment stratification. In most cancers, there are increased levels of one or several members of the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). This is a family of proteolytic enzymes that are involved in many phases of cancer progression, including angiogenesis, invasiveness, and metastasis. It has therefore been expected that MMPs could serve as both diagnostic and prognostic markers in cancer patients, but despite a huge number of studies, it has been difficult to establish MMPs as cancer biomarkers. In the present paper, we assess some of the challenges associated with MMP research as well as putative reasons for the conflicting data on the value of these enzymes as diagnostic and prognostic markers in cancer patients. We also review the prognostic value of a number of MMPs in patients with lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers. The review also discusses MMPs as potential target molecules for therapeutic agents and new strategies for development of such drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 27%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 14%
Chemistry 10 8%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 18 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#9,549,158
of 12,428,247 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,023
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,197
of 195,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#58
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,428,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 195,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.