↓ Skip to main content

The blind men and the AML elephant: can we feel the progress?

Overview of attention for article published in Blood Cancer Journal, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
The blind men and the AML elephant: can we feel the progress?
Published in
Blood Cancer Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1038/bcj.2016.33
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Tauro

Abstract

The pharmacological therapy of non-promyelocytic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has remained unchanged for over 40 years with an anthracycline-cytarabine combination forming the backbone of induction treatments. Nevertheless, the survival of younger patients has increased due to improved management of the toxicity of therapies including stem cell transplantation. Older patients and those with infirmity that precludes treatment-intensification have, however, not benefited from improvements in supportive care and continue to experience poor outcomes. An increased understanding of the genomic heterogeneity of AML raises the possibility of treatment-stratification to improve prognosis. Thus, efforts to identify agents with non-conventional anti-leukemic effects have paralleled those aiming to optimize leukemia cell-kill with conventional chemotherapy, resulting in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In the last 18 months, RCTs investigating the effects of vosaroxin, azacitidine and gemtuzumab ozogamycin and daunorubicin dose have been reported with some studies indicating a statistically significant survival benefit with the investigational agent compared with standard therapy and potentially, a new era in AML therapeutics. Given the increasing costs of cancer care, a review of these studies, with particular attention to the magnitude of clinical benefit with the newer agents would be useful, especially for physicians treating patients in single-payer health systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Mathematics 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,396,446
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Blood Cancer Journal
#680
of 1,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,027
of 312,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood Cancer Journal
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 312,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.