↓ Skip to main content

Inflammation in Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva and Other Forms of Heterotopic Ossification

Overview of attention for article published in Current Osteoporosis Reports, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Inflammation in Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva and Other Forms of Heterotopic Ossification
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports, November 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11914-019-00541-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koji Matsuo, Robert Dalton Chavez, Emilie Barruet, Edward C. Hsiao

Abstract

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is associated with inflammation. The goal of this review is to examine recent findings on the roles of inflammation and the immune system in HO. We examine how inflammation changes in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, in traumatic HO, and in other clinical conditions of HO. We also discuss how inflammation may be a target for treating HO. Both genetic and acquired forms of HO show similarities in their inflammatory cell types and signaling pathways. These include macrophages, mast cells, and adaptive immune cells, along with hypoxia signaling pathways, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation signaling pathways, vascular signaling pathways, and inflammatory cytokines. Because there are common inflammatory mediators across various types of HO, these mediators may serve as common targets for blocking HO. Future research may focus on identifying new inflammatory targets and testing combinatorial therapies based on these results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 21 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 23 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#13,306,783
of 23,175,240 outputs
Outputs from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#221
of 552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,584
of 360,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,175,240 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 552 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 360,035 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 51% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.