↓ Skip to main content

Defining Biological Subsets in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Progress Toward Personalized Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmaceutical Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Defining Biological Subsets in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Progress Toward Personalized Therapy
Published in
Pharmaceutical Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40290-017-0178-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nailú Angélica Sinicato, Mariana Postal, Simone Appenzeller, Timothy B. Niewold

Abstract

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a heterogeneous disease with respect to disease severity, response to treatment, and organ damage. The pathogenesis of SLE includes immunological mechanisms which are driven by both genetic and environmental factors. There are clear differences in the pathogenesis of SLE between patients of different ancestral backgrounds, including differences in genetic risk factors, immunological parameters, and clinical manifestations. Patients with high vs. low levels of type I interferon (IFN) in circulation represents one major biological subset within SLE, and these two groups of patients are present in all ancestral backgrounds. Genetic factors, autoantibodies, and levels of other cytokines all differ between high and low IFN patients. This distinction has also been important in predicting response to treatment with anti-type I IFN therapies, providing a precedent in SLE for biological subsets predicting treatment response. This review will highlight some recent developments in defining biological subsets of SLE based on disease pathophysiology, and the idea that improved knowledge of disease heterogeneity will inform our efforts to personalize therapy in this disease.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#117
of 147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,804
of 419,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 419,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.