| Title |
International Union of Immunological Societies: 2017 Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases Committee Report on Inborn Errors of Immunity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Immunology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10875-017-0464-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Capucine Picard, H. Bobby Gaspar, Waleed Al-Herz, Aziz Bousfiha, Jean-Laurent Casanova, Talal Chatila, Yanick J. Crow, Charlotte Cunningham-Rundles, Amos Etzioni, Jose Luis Franco, Steven M. Holland, Christoph Klein, Tomohiro Morio, Hans D. Ochs, Eric Oksenhendler, Jennifer Puck, Mimi L. K. Tang, Stuart G. Tangye, Troy R. Torgerson, Kathleen E. Sullivan |
| Abstract |
Beginning in 1970, a committee was constituted under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) to catalog primary immunodeficiencies. Twenty years later, the International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS) took the remit of this committee. The current report details the categorization and listing of 354 (as of February 2017) inborn errors of immunity. The growth and increasing complexity of the field have been impressive, encompassing an increasing variety of conditions, and the classification described here will serve as a critical reference for immunologists and researchers worldwide. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 11 | 35% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| United States | 3 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 645 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 645 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 79 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 73 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 71 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 61 | 9% |
| Other | 60 | 9% |
| Other | 118 | 18% |
| Unknown | 183 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 183 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 111 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 79 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 24 | 4% |
| Unknown | 203 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,253,846
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#51
of 1,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,790
of 449,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 449,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.