↓ Skip to main content

Impaired hypoglycaemia awareness in type 1 diabetes: lessons from the lab

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, February 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Impaired hypoglycaemia awareness in type 1 diabetes: lessons from the lab
Published in
Diabetologia, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00125-018-4548-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison D. McNeilly, Rory J. McCrimmon

Abstract

Hypoglycaemia remains the most common metabolic adverse effect of insulin and sulfonylurea therapy in diabetes. Repeated exposure to hypoglycaemia leads to a change in the symptom complex that characterises hypoglycaemia, culminating in a clinical phenomenon referred to as impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH). IAH effects approximately 20-25% of people with type 1 diabetes and increases the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. This review focuses on the mechanisms that are responsible for the much higher frequency of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes compared with those without, and subsequently how repeated exposure to hypoglycaemia leads to the development of IAH. The mechanisms that result in IAH development are incompletely understood and likely to reflect changes in multiple aspects of the counterregulatory response to hypoglycaemia, from adaptations within glucose and non-glucose-sensing cells to changes in the integrative networks that govern glucose homeostasis. Finally, we propose that the general process that incorporates many of these changes and results in IAH following recurrent hypoglycaemia is a form of adaptive memory called 'habituation'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,327,149
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#705
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,794
of 448,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#16
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 448,726 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 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.