↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive profiling of biological processes reveals two major prognostic subtypes in breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive profiling of biological processes reveals two major prognostic subtypes in breast cancer
Published in
Tumor Biology, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13277-015-4173-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fei Chen, Sheng Gao, Fengliang Wang, Jingjing Ma, Min Zhang, Mingming Lv, Qian Zhou, Ziyi Fu, Cheng Lu, Hong Yin

Abstract

Heterogeneity is the major obstacle to breast cancer target therapy. Classification of breast cancer with significant biological process may reduce the influence of heterogeneity of intrinsic tumor. We used survival analysis to filter 95 gene sets and classify 638 breast cancer samples into two subtypes based on those gene sets associated with prognosis. Clinical outcome of two subtypes were evaluated with disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival levels in three databases and ER+, PR+ HER2+, and TNBC groups. We established a novel classification with 95 prognostic gene sets. In the training and validation cohorts, the subtype 1 was characterized by significant gene sets associated with regulation of metabolic process and enzyme activity and predicted obviously improved clinical outcome than subtype 2, which was enriched by tumor cell division, mitosis, and cell cycle-related gene sets (P < 0.05). When evaluated prognostic impact of subtypes in ER+, PR+ HER2+, and TNBC groups, we found that patients in subtype 1 showed better prognosis in ER+ and PR+ groups (P < 0.05) but had no difference from prognosis of subtype 2 in HER2+ and TNBC groups. These findings may have implications in understanding of breast cancer and filtering effective therapeutic strategies for targeted therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 50%
Student > Master 1 25%
Unspecified 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 25%
Unspecified 1 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 25%

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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,797,462
of 12,428,247 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#756
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,516
of 251,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#57
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,428,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 59% 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 251,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.