↓ Skip to main content

Regulation of alveolar macrophage death in acute lung inflammation

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Regulation of alveolar macrophage death in acute lung inflammation
Published in
Respiratory Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-018-0756-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica K Y Fan, Jie Fan

Abstract

Acute lung injury (ALI) and its severe form, known as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are caused by direct pulmonary insults and indirect systemic inflammatory responses that result from conditions such as sepsis, trauma, and major surgery. The reciprocal influences between pulmonary and systemic inflammation augments the inflammatory process in the lung and promotes the development of ALI. Emerging evidence has revealed that alveolar macrophage (AM) death plays important roles in the progression of lung inflammation through its influence on other immune cell populations in the lung. Cell death and tissue inflammation form a positive feedback cycle, ultimately leading to exaggerated inflammation and development of disease. Pharmacological manipulation of AM death signals may serve as a logical therapeutic strategy for ALI/ARDS. This review will focus on recent advances in the regulation and underlying mechanisms of AM death as well as the influence of AM death on the development of ALI.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,359,319
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#961
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,432
of 344,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#28
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 344,729 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 63% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.