↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The amplification of 1q21 is an adverse prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma in a Chinese population

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
The amplification of 1q21 is an adverse prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma in a Chinese population
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s95381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenjun Yu, Rui Guo, Xiaoyan Qu, Hairong Qiu, Jianyong Li, Run Zhang, Lijuan Chen

Abstract

The prognostic heterogeneity of multiple myeloma (MM) is largely due to different genetic abnormalities. Cytogenetic analysis has revealed that most of MM harbor chromosome aberrations. Amplification of 1q21 is one of the most common chromosomal aberrations. Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization was applied to detect the 1q21 amplification in 86 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed MM. Amp(1q21) was found in totally 40 of 86 (46.5%) cases, among which 29 with three copies of 1q21 and eleven with at least four copies of 1q21. Further analysis revealed a significant difference of overall survival and progression-free survival among the three arms (P<0.05). Bortezomib could not significantly improve the overall survival for patients with 1q21 amplification (P>0.05). These findings suggest that 1q21 amplification with four copies or more is prognostic factor for adverse outcomes of MM patients. Furthermore, chromosome 1q21 gains predicted a poor overall survival even in those receiving bortezomib-based regimens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#5,240,498
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#259
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,136
of 399,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#8
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 399,679 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 90% of its contemporaries.