You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Krüppeling erythropoiesis: an unexpected broad spectrum of human red blood cell disorders due to KLF1 variants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Blood, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1182/blood-2016-01-694331 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew Perkins, Xiangmin Xu, Douglas R. Higgs, George P. Patrinos, Lionel Arnaud, James J. Bieker, Sjaak Philipsen, the KLF1 Consensus Workgroup |
| Abstract |
Until recently our approach to the analysis of human genetic diseases has been to accurately phenotype patients and sequence the genes known to be associated with those phenotypes; for example, analysing the globin loci in cases of thalassemia. As sequencing has become increasingly accessible, a larger panel of genes is now analysed and whole exome/genome sequencing is applied in cases where no variants are found in the candidate genes. Using such approaches in patients with unexplained anemias, we have discovered that a broad range of hitherto unrelated human red cell disorders are caused by variants in KLF1, a master regulator of erythropoiesis, previously considered to be extremely rare causes of human genetic disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 3 | 23% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Poland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 46% |
| Scientists | 6 | 46% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 33 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,735,453
of 25,503,365 outputs
Outputs from Blood
#4,813
of 33,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,642
of 313,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood
#83
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,503,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 313,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 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 69% of its contemporaries.