↓ Skip to main content

Diffuse lung disease of infancy: a pattern-based, algorithmic approach to histological diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Pathology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diffuse lung disease of infancy: a pattern-based, algorithmic approach to histological diagnosis
Published in
Journal of Clinical Pathology, December 2014
DOI 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane E Armes, William Mifsud, Michael Ashworth

Abstract

Diffuse lung disease (DLD) of infancy has multiple aetiologies and the spectrum of disease is substantially different from that seen in older children and adults. In many cases, a specific diagnosis renders a dire prognosis for the infant, with profound management implications. Two recently published series of DLD of infancy, collated from the archives of specialist centres, indicate that the majority of their cases were referred, implying that the majority of biopsies taken for DLD of infancy are first received by less experienced pathologists. The current literature describing DLD of infancy takes a predominantly aetiological approach to classification. We present an algorithmic, histological, pattern-based approach to diagnosis of DLD of infancy, which, with the aid of appropriate multidisciplinary input, including clinical and radiological expertise and ancillary diagnostic studies, may lead to an accurate and useful interim report, with timely exclusion of inappropriate diagnoses. Subsequent referral to a specialist centre for confirmatory diagnosis will be dependent on the individual case and the decision of the multidisciplinary team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Other 7 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#12,907,471
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#2,494
of 3,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,084
of 360,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#23
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 360,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.