↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneity in retinoblastoma: a tale of molecules and models

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Heterogeneity in retinoblastoma: a tale of molecules and models
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0173-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonya Stenfelt, Maria K. E. Blixt, Charlotta All-Ericsson, Finn Hallböök, Henrik Boije

Abstract

Retinoblastoma, an intraocular pediatric cancer, develops in the embryonic retina following biallelic loss of RB1. However, there is a wide range of genetic and epigenetic changes that can affect RB1 resulting in different clinical outcomes. In addition, other transformations, such as MYCN amplification, generate particularly aggressive tumors, which may or may not be RB1 independent. Recognizing the cellular characteristics required for tumor development, by identifying the elusive cell-of-origin for retinoblastoma, would help us understand the development of these tumors. In this review we summarize the heterogeneity reported in retinoblastoma on a molecular, cellular and tissue level. We also discuss the challenging heterogeneity in current retinoblastoma models and suggest future platforms that could contribute to improved understanding of tumor initiation, progression and metastasis in retinoblastoma, which may ultimately lead to more patient-specific treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 30%
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 April 2021.
All research outputs
#8,264,793
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#328
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,356
of 342,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 68% 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 342,671 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.