↓ Skip to main content

Mass cytometry as a platform for the discovery of cellular biomarkers to guide effective rheumatic disease therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Mass cytometry as a platform for the discovery of cellular biomarkers to guide effective rheumatic disease therapy
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0644-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nitya Nair, Henrik E Mei, Shih-Yu Chen, Matthew Hale, Garry P Nolan, Holden T Maecker, Mark Genovese, C Garrison Fathman, Chan C Whiting

Abstract

The development of biomarkers for autoimmune diseases has been hampered by a lack of understanding of disease etiopathogenesis and of the mechanisms underlying the induction and maintenance of inflammation, which involves complex activation dynamics of diverse cell types. The heterogeneous nature and suboptimal clinical response to treatment observed in many autoimmune syndromes highlight the need to develop improved strategies to predict patient outcome to therapy and personalize patient care. Mass cytometry, using CyTOF®, is an advanced technology that facilitates multiparametric, phenotypic analysis of immune cells at single-cell resolution. In this review, we outline the capabilities of mass cytometry and illustrate the potential of this technology to enhance the discovery of cellular biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis, a prototypical autoimmune disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
Unknown 109 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 22 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,459
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,035
of 279,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#30
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 279,392 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 51% of its contemporaries.