↓ Skip to main content

Estimation of regional pleural surface expansile forces in intact dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Physiology, September 1983
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
9 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.
Article details
Title
Estimation of regional pleural surface expansile forces in intact dogs
Published in
Journal of Applied Physiology, September 1983
DOI 10.1152/jappl.1983.55.3.935
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Distances between percutaneously inserted apical and basal lung markers determined by biplane X-ray, computer-based videometry (J. Appl. Physiol. 34: 544, 1973) were calibrated against dependent percutaneously recorded pleural liquid pressures (J. Appl. Physiol. 31: 277, 1971) in five 10-12 kg mongrel dogs under morphine-pentobarbital anesthesia studied without thoracotomy. At the same apical pleural-liquid pressure values, the apical intermarker distances were uniformly greater when in the head-up rather than head-down position. This finding suggests that the expansile forces acting on the apical regions of the lung, in the head-up position, are greater (-30 +/- 2 cmH2O) than would be predicted from "pleural liquid" pressures (-15 +/- 1 cmH2O) measured at this nondependent site in the thorax, and much greater than the "pleural surface" pressures measured by the generally accepted balloon and counter-pressure techniques. In contrast, in the head-down body position, expansile forces acting on the nondependent basal regions of the lung estimated by the intermarker distance technique were variable to either side of the pressures measured by open-ended liquid-filled catheters, and thus were not significantly different. Mean values measured by the catheters and predicted by the markers were -14 +/- 1 and -10 +/- 3 cmH2O, respectively.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 11%
Chile 1 11%
Unknown 7 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 33%
Professor 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 3 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Neuroscience 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,863,838
of 23,419,482 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,319
of 8,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#885
of 8,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Physiology
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,419,482 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 8,303 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 72% of its contemporaries.