| Title |
Diagnostic Tools for Inborn Errors of Human Immunity (Primary Immunodeficiencies and Immune Dysregulatory Diseases)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11882-018-0770-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annely M. Richardson, Ann M. Moyer, Linda Hasadsri, Roshini S. Abraham |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of diagnostic testing in primary immunodeficiency and immune dysregulatory disorders (PIDDs), particularly focusing on flow cytometry and genetic techniques, utilizing specific examples of PIDDs. Flow cytometry remains a vital tool in the diagnosis and monitoring of immunological diseases. Its utility ranges from cellular analysis and specific protein quantitation to functional assays and signaling pathway analysis. Mass cytometry combines flow cytometry and mass spectrometry to dramatically increase the throughput of multivariate single-cell analysis. Next-generation sequencing in combination with other molecular techniques and processing algorithms has become more widely available and identified the diverse and heterogeneous genetic underpinnings of these disorders. As the spectrum of disease is further clarified by increasing immunological, genetic, and epigenetic knowledge, the careful application of these diagnostic tools and bioinformatics will assist not only in our understanding of these complex disorders, but also enable the implementation of personalized therapeutic approaches for disease management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 33% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,481,923
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#187
of 808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,710
of 330,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 330,912 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.