Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma
Impact in
Classified as
- Journal
- The Journal of Pathology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1002/path.5372 →Countries where authors are citing Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma
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
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.
About Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma
This paper, published in 2019, received 261 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 (180 citations), Reproductive Medicine (68 citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (59 citations), Cancer Research (55 citations) and Molecular Biology (41 citations). Published in The Journal of Pathology.
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.