| Title |
Immune Mechanisms and Pathways Targeted in Type 1 Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-018-1066-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura M. Jacobsen, Brittney N. Newby, Daniel J. Perry, Amanda L. Posgai, Michael J. Haller, Todd M. Brusko |
| Abstract |
The immunosuppressive agent cyclosporine was first reported to lower daily insulin dose and improve glycemic control in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) in 1984. While renal toxicity limited cyclosporine's extended use, this observation ignited collaborative efforts to identify immunotherapeutic agents capable of safely preserving β cells in patients with or at risk for T1D. Advances in T1D prediction and early diagnosis, together with expanded knowledge of the disease mechanisms, have facilitated trials targeting specific immune cell subsets, autoantigens, and pathways. In addition, clinical responder and non-responder subsets have been defined through the use of metabolic and immunological readouts. Herein, we review emerging T1D biomarkers within the context of recent and ongoing T1D immunotherapy trials. We also discuss responder/non-responder analyses in an effort to identify therapeutic mechanisms, define actionable pathways, and guide subject selection, drug dosing, and tailored combination drug therapy for future T1D trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 34% |
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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,907,273
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#566
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,573
of 335,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#25
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 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 1,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 335,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.