↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenetics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter: cfDNA-Based NGS IG Analysis in Lymphoma
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
cfDNA-Based NGS IG Analysis in Lymphoma
Book title
Immunogenetics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2022
DOI 10.1007/978-1-0716-2115-8_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-07-162114-1, 978-1-07-162115-8
Authors

Pott, Christiane, Kotrova, Michaela, Darzentas, Nikos, Brüggemann, Monika, Khouja, Mouhamad, , , Christiane Pott, Michaela Kotrova, Nikos Darzentas, Monika Brüggemann, Mouhamad Khouja

Abstract

Liquid biopsy is a novel diagnostic approach at first developed to characterize the molecular profile of solid tumors by analyzing body fluids. For cancer patients, it represents a noninvasive way to monitor the status of the solid tumor with respect to representative biomarkers. There is growing interest in the utilization of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis also in the diagnostic and prognostic fields of lymphomas. Clonal immunoglobulin (IG) gene rearrangements are fingerprints of the respective lymphoid malignancy and thus are highly suited as specific molecular targets for minimal residual disease (MRD) detection. Tracing of the clonal IG rearrangement patterns in ctDNA pool during treatment can be used for MRD assessment in B-cell lymphomas. Here, we describe a reproducible next-generation sequencing assay to identify and characterize clonal IG gene rearrangements for MRD detection in cell-free DNA.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Other 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Unknown 6 60%
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 28 May 2022.
All research outputs
#13,850,069
of 23,866,543 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#3,671
of 13,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,125
of 516,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#138
of 818 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,866,543 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 13,452 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 516,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 818 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.