↓ Skip to main content

Oncotarget

Article Metrics

Biomarkers for early diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: Do we need another moonshot?

Overview of attention for article published in Oncotarget, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 11,926)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
59 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Biomarkers for early diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: Do we need another moonshot?
Published in
Oncotarget, May 2017
DOI 10.18632/oncotarget.17910
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina Lagniau, Kevin Lamote, Jan P. van Meerbeeck, Karim Y. Vermaelen

Abstract

Early diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a challenge for clinicians. The disease is usually detected in an advanced stage which precludes curative treatment. We assume that only new and non-invasive biomarkers allowing earlier detection will result in better patient management and outcome. Many efforts have already been made to find suitable biomarkers in blood and pleural effusions, but have not yet resulted in a valid and reproducible diagnostic one. In this review, we will highlight the strengths and shortcomings of blood and fluid based biomarkers and highlight the potential of breath analysis as a non-invasive screening tool for MPM. This method seems very promising in the early detection of diverse malignancies, because exhaled breath contains valuable information on cell and tissue metabolism. Research that focuses on breath biomarkers in MPM is in its early days, but the few studies that have been performed show promising results. We believe a breathomics-based biomarker approach should be further explored to improve the follow-up and management of asbestos exposed individuals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Chemistry 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 7 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 476. 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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,686
of 12,936,999 outputs
Outputs from Oncotarget
#4
of 11,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#862
of 266,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncotarget
#1
of 1,188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,936,999 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 11,926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. 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 266,830 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 1,188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.