| Title |
Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s109285 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa Balchen, Karen Simon |
| Abstract |
Most colon tumors develop via a multistep process involving a series of histological, morphological, and genetic changes that accumulate over time. This has allowed for screening and detection of early-stage precancerous polyps before they become cancerous in individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), which may lead to substantial decreases in the incidence of CRC. Despite the known benefits of early screening, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Hence, it is important for health care providers to have an understanding of the risk factors for CRC and various stages of disease development in order to recommend appropriate screening strategies. This article provides an overview of the histological/molecular changes that characterize the development of CRC. It describes the available CRC screening methods and their advantages and limitations and highlights the stages of CRC development in which each screening method is most effective. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,086 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1086 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 181 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 133 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 71 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 48 | 4% |
| Researcher | 44 | 4% |
| Other | 130 | 12% |
| Unknown | 479 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 193 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 151 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 46 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 39 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 3% |
| Other | 121 | 11% |
| Unknown | 500 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 05 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,253,063
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#118
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,020
of 370,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 370,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 96% of its contemporaries.