↓ Skip to main content

Acute and chronic phagocyte determinants of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Immunopathology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Acute and chronic phagocyte determinants of cardiac allograft vasculopathy
Published in
Seminars in Immunopathology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00281-018-0699-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristofor Glinton, Matthew DeBerge, Xin-Yi Yeap, Jenny Zhang, Joseph Forbess, Xunrong Luo, Edward B. Thorp

Abstract

Post-transplant immunosuppression has reduced the incidence of T cell-mediated acute rejection, yet long-term cardiac graft survival rates remain a challenge. An important determinant of chronic solid organ allograft complication is accelerated vascular disease of the transplanted graft. In the case of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), the precise cellular etiology remains inadequately understood; however, histologic evidence hints at the accumulation and activation of innate phagocytes as a causal contributing factor. This includes monocytes, macrophages, and immature dendritic cell subsets. In addition to crosstalk with adaptive T and B immune cells, myeloid phagocytes secrete paracrine signals that directly activate fibroblasts and vascular smooth muscle cells, both of which contribute to fibrous intimal thickening. Though maladaptive phagocyte functions may promote CAV, directed modulation of myeloid cell function, at the molecular level, holds promise for tolerance and prolonged cardiac graft function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Student > Master 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,625,040
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Immunopathology
#335
of 552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,717
of 334,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Immunopathology
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 334,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.