↓ Skip to main content

Epicutaneous Immunity and Onset of Allergic Diseases - Per-“Eczema”tous Sensitization Drives the Allergy March

Overview of attention for article published in Allergology International, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Epicutaneous Immunity and Onset of Allergic Diseases - Per-“Eczema”tous Sensitization Drives the Allergy March
Published in
Allergology International, January 2013
DOI 10.2332/allergolint.13-rai-0603
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenji Matsumoto, Hirohisa Saito

Abstract

Results from recent epidemiological studies strongly suggest that ingestion of food promotes immune tolerance to food antigens, whereas exposure to food antigens through skin leads to allergic sensitization. A "dual-allergen-exposure hypothesis" has been proposed to explain those findings. However, several other recent studies have demonstrated that some allergic diseases can be successfully treated by recurrent epicutaneous exposure to allergens. At a glance, these two sets of findings seem to be contradictory, but we think they provide important clues for understanding the mechanisms behind the allergy march. Here, we propose that per-"eczema"tous sensitization drives the allergy march, and we introduce results from several published studies in support of this hypothesis. We hope that this review may help in establishment of new strategies for preventing the allergy march in the near future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,148,094
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Allergology International
#216
of 778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,622
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergology International
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 288,986 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.