| Title |
COPD immunopathology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Seminars in Immunopathology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00281-016-0561-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gaetano Caramori, Paolo Casolari, Adam Barczyk, Andrew L. Durham, Antonino Di Stefano, Ian Adcock |
| Abstract |
The immunopathology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on the innate and adaptive inflammatory immune responses to the chronic inhalation of cigarette smoking. In the last quarter of the century, the analysis of specimens obtained from the lower airways of COPD patients compared with those from a control group of age-matched smokers with normal lung function has provided novel insights on the potential pathogenetic role of the different cells of the innate and acquired immune responses and their pro/anti-inflammatory mediators and intracellular signalling pathways, contributing to a better knowledge of the immunopathology of COPD both during its stable phase and during its exacerbations. This also has provided a scientific rationale for new drugs discovery and targeting to the lower airways. This review summarises and discusses the immunopathology of COPD patients, of different severity, compared with control smokers with normal lung function. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 5 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 200 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 77 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 85 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 December 2018.
All research outputs
#5,519,171
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Immunopathology
#155
of 548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,463
of 312,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Immunopathology
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 312,377 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.