↓ Skip to main content

Clinical potential of gene mutations in lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Clinical potential of gene mutations in lung cancer
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40169-015-0074-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miranda B. Carper, Pier Paolo Claudio

Abstract

Lung cancer is the most common cancer type worldwide and the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The majority of newly diagnosed patients present with late stage metastatic lung cancer that is inoperable and resistant to therapies. High-throughput genomic technologies have made the identification of genetic mutations that promote lung cancer progression possible. Identification of the mutations that drive lung cancer provided new targets for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment and led to the development of targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors that can be used to combat the molecular changes that promote cancer progression. Development of targeted therapies is not the only clinical benefit of gene analysis studies. Biomarkers identified from gene analysis can be used for early lung cancer detection, determine patient's prognosis and response to therapy, and monitor disease progression. Biomarkers can be used to identify the NSCLC patient population that would most benefit from treatment (targeted therapies or chemotherapies), providing clinicians tools that can be used to develop a personalized treatment plan. This review explores the clinical potential of NSCLC genetic studies on diagnosing and treating NSCLC.

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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 33 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 33 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#752
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,601
of 392,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 392,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.