| Title |
Breast cancer causes and treatment: where are we going wrong?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast cancer targets and therapy, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/bctt.s44399 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin B Seymour, Carmel Mothersill |
| Abstract |
This discussion paper seeks to provoke thoughts about cancer research in general, and why breast cancer in particular is not yet "curable". It asks the question - are we looking at the disease in the right way? Should we regard cancer as a progressive state, which is part of aging? Should we tailor treatment to "reset" the system or slow progression rather than try using toxic and aggressive therapy to kill every cancer cell (and sometimes also the patient)? The thesis is presented that we need to revisit our fundamental beliefs about the disease and then ask why we cling to beliefs that clearly are no longer valid. The paper also questions the role of ethics boards in hampering research and discusses the concept that breast cancer is an industry with vested interests involving profiteering by preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic players. Finally, the paper suggests some ways forward based on emerging concepts in system biology and epigenetics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,292,673
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#155
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,825
of 322,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 322,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them