↓ Skip to main content

Lung Cancer and Personalized Medicine

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 3: Lung Cancer in Never Smokers.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Lung Cancer in Never Smokers.
Chapter number 3
Book title
Lung Cancer and Personalized Medicine
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24223-1_3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-924221-7, 978-3-31-924223-1
Authors

Gabriel Alberto Rivera, Heather Wakelee, Rivera, Gabriel Alberto, Wakelee, Heather

Editors

Aamir Ahmad, Shirish Gadgeel

Abstract

Lung cancer is predominantly associated with cigarette smoking; however, a substantial minority of patients with the disease have never smoked. In the US it is estimated there are 17,000-26,000 annual deaths from lung cancer in never smokers, which as a separate entity would be the seventh leading cause of cancer mortality. Controversy surrounds the question of whether or not the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is increasing, with more data to support this observation in Asia. There are several factors associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer in never smokers including second hand smoke, indoor air pollution, occupational exposures, and genetic susceptibility among others. Adenocarcinoma is the most common histology of lung cancer in never smokers and in comparison to lung cancer in smokers appears less complex with a higher likelihood to have targetable driver mutations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 16%
Student > Master 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Researcher 11 5%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 99 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 104 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,488,680
of 24,286,850 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#736
of 5,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,347
of 399,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#68
of 422 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,286,850 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 399,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 422 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.