The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer
Impact in
- Oncology 1.5k
Classified as
- Journal
- Nature Medicine
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1038/nm.3967 →Countries where authors are citing The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer
This map shows the geographic impact of The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. 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 The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer
This network shows the impact of The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer.
About The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer
This paper, published in 2015, received 4.0k indexed citations . Written by Justin Guinney, Rodrigo Dienstmann, Xin Wang, Aurélien de Reyniès, Andreas Schlicker, Charlotte Soneson, Laëtitia Marisa, Paul Roepman, Gift Nyamundanda and Paolo Angelino covering the research area of Oncology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Oncology (1.5k citations), Molecular Biology (594 citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (248 citations), Cancer Research (235 citations) and Immunology (68 citations). Published in Nature Medicine.
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/10.1038/nm.3967.