↓ Skip to main content

Clustering by Plasma Lipoprotein Profile Reveals Two Distinct Subgroups with Positive Lipid Response to Fenofibrate Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
Title
Clustering by Plasma Lipoprotein Profile Reveals Two Distinct Subgroups with Positive Lipid Response to Fenofibrate Therapy
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kees van Bochove, Daniël B. van Schalkwijk, Laurence D. Parnell, Chao-Qiang Lai, José M. Ordovás, Albert A. de Graaf, Ben van Ommen, Donna K. Arnett

Abstract

Fibrates lower triglycerides and raise HDL cholesterol in dyslipidemic patients, but show heterogeneous treatment response. We used k-means clustering to identify three representative NMR lipoprotein profiles for 775 subjects from the GOLDN population, and study the response to fenofibrate in corresponding subgroups. The subjects in each subgroup showed differences in conventional lipid characteristics and in presence/absence of cardiovascular risk factors at baseline; there were subgroups with a low, medium and high degree of dyslipidemia. Modeling analysis suggests that the difference between the subgroups with low and medium dyslipidemia is influenced mainly by hepatic uptake dysfunction, while the difference between subgroups with medium and high dyslipidemia is influenced mainly by extrahepatic lipolysis disfunction. The medium and high dyslipidemia subgroups showed a positive, yet distinct lipid response to fenofibrate treatment. When comparing our subgroups to known subgrouping methods, we identified an additional 33% of the population with favorable lipid response to fenofibrate compared to a standard baseline triglyceride cutoff method. Compared to a standard HDL cholesterol cutoff method, the addition was 18%. In conclusion, by using constructing subgroups based on representative lipoprotein profiles, we have identified two subgroups of subjects with positive lipid response to fenofibrate therapy and with different underlying disturbances in lipoprotein metabolism. The total subgroup with positive lipid response to fenofibrate is larger than subgroups identified with baseline triglyceride and HDL cholesterol cutoffs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 25 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 June 2012.
All research outputs
#6,693,812
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#78,732
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,401
of 167,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,303
of 3,847 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 167,155 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,847 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 65% of its contemporaries.