| Title |
Analyses of repeated failures in cancer therapy for solid tumors: poor tumor‐selective drug delivery, low therapeutic efficacy and unsustainable costs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40169-018-0185-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroshi Maeda, Mahin Khatami |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 | 10 | 28% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Argentina | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 78% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 440 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 440 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 16% |
| Researcher | 52 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 49 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 62 | 14% |
| Unknown | 143 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 54 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 35 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 31 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 83 | 19% |
| Unknown | 168 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 825. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#22,777
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#1
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#487
of 345,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 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 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. 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 345,981 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them