↓ Skip to main content

Blood Biomarkers in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Lung, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
Title
Blood Biomarkers in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Published in
Lung, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00408-017-9993-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julien Guiot, Catherine Moermans, Monique Henket, Jean-Louis Corhay, Renaud Louis

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and lethal lung disease of unknown origin whose incidence has been increasing over the latest decade partly as a consequence of population ageing. New anti-fibrotic therapy including pirfenidone and nintedanib have now proven efficacy in slowing down the disease. Nevertheless, diagnosis and follow-up of IPF remain challenging. This review examines the recent literature on potentially useful blood molecular and cellular biomarkers in IPF. Most of the proposed biomarkers belong to chemokines (IL-8, CCL18), proteases (MMP-1 and MMP-7), and growth factors (IGBPs) families. Circulating T cells and fibrocytes have also gained recent interest in that respect. Up to now, though several interesting candidates are profiling there has not been a single biomarker, which proved to be specific of the disease and predictive of the evolution (decline of pulmonary function test values, risk of acute exacerbation or mortality). Large scale multicentric studies are eagerly needed to confirm the utility of these biomarkers.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Master 18 10%
Other 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 52 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 56 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#4,669,132
of 25,059,640 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#122
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,121
of 314,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,059,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 314,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 91% of its contemporaries.