| Title |
Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2017.74.1173 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Veda N. Giri, Karen E. Knudsen, William K. Kelly, Wassim Abida, Gerald L. Andriole, Chris H. Bangma, Justin E. Bekelman, Mitchell C. Benson, Amie Blanco, Arthur Burnett, William J. Catalona, Kathleen A. Cooney, Matthew Cooperberg, David E. Crawford, Robert B. Den, Adam P. Dicker, Scott Eggener, Neil Fleshner, Matthew L. Freedman, Freddie C. Hamdy, Jean Hoffman-Censits, Mark D. Hurwitz, Colette Hyatt, William B. Isaacs, Christopher J. Kane, Philip Kantoff, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Lawrence I. Karsh, Eric A. Klein, Daniel W. Lin, Kevin R. Loughlin, Grace Lu-Yao, S. Bruce Malkowicz, Mark J. Mann, James R. Mark, Peter A. McCue, Martin M. Miner, Todd Morgan, Judd W. Moul, Ronald E. Myers, Sarah M. Nielsen, Elias Obeid, Christian P. Pavlovich, Stephen C. Peiper, David F. Penson, Daniel Petrylak, Curtis A. Pettaway, Robert Pilarski, Peter A. Pinto, Wendy Poage, Ganesh V. Raj, Timothy R. Rebbeck, Mark E. Robson, Matt T. Rosenberg, Howard Sandler, Oliver Sartor, Edward Schaeffer, Gordon F. Schwartz, Mark S. Shahin, Neal D. Shore, Brian Shuch, Howard R. Soule, Scott A. Tomlins, Edouard J. Trabulsi, Robert Uzzo, Donald J. Vander Griend, Patrick C. Walsh, Carol J. Weil, Richard Wender, Leonard G. Gomella |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 | 42 | 44% |
| Spain | 8 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 5% |
| Brazil | 4 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Panama | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 51% |
| Scientists | 26 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 213 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 8% |
| Professor | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 44 | 21% |
| Unknown | 67 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 9% |
| Unknown | 77 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 575. 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 12 March 2024.
All research outputs
#41,520
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#53
of 22,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#891
of 448,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#3
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 22,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 448,595 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 186 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 98% of its contemporaries.