Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1950, received 239 indexed citations. Written by Alicia León‐Castillo, Heidi Britton, Melissa K. McConechy, Jessica N. McAlpine, Remi A. Nout, Stefan Kommoss, Sara Y. Brucker, Joseph W. Carlson, E. Epstein and Tilman T. Rau covering the research area of Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Cancer Research and Reproductive Medicine. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Obstetrics and Gynecology (178 citations), Reproductive Medicine (118 citations) and Pathology and Forensic Medicine (89 citations). Published in The Journal of Pathology.

Countries where authors are citing Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1002/path.5372.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026