↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in sudden infant death syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Autonomic Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in sudden infant death syndrome
Published in
Clinical Autonomic Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10286-017-0490-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary S. C. Horne

Abstract

A failure of cardiorespiratory control mechanisms, together with an impaired arousal response from sleep, are believed to play an important role in the final event of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The 'triple risk model' describes SIDS as an event that results from the intersection of three overlapping factors: (1) a vulnerable infant, (2) a critical developmental period in homeostatic control and (3) an exogenous stressor. In an attempt to understand how the triple risk hypothesis is related to infant cardiorespiratory physiology, many researchers have examined how the known risk and protective factors for SIDS alter infant cardiovascular control during sleep. This review discusses the association between the three components of the triple risk hypothesis and major risk factors for SIDS, such as prone sleeping, maternal smoking, together with three "protective" factors, and cardiovascular control during sleep in infants, and discusses their potential involvement in SIDS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 17 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 18 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,839,502
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Autonomic Research
#82
of 791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,441
of 444,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Autonomic Research
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 444,372 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.