↓ Skip to main content

Hydrogen sulfide as a therapeutic target for inflammation

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Hydrogen sulfide as a therapeutic target for inflammation
Published in
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, March 2012
DOI 10.1517/14728222.2012.673591
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The view of hydrogen sulfide has changed from a toxic by-product to a crucial signaling molecule, with enormous potential as a pharmacological target for diseases ranging from heart disease to sepsis. Despite this progression of ideas, there is still a large amount that is unknown about this gaseous signaling molecule. Hydrogen sulfide has been implicated as a tissue protectant in many pathological conditions, the mechanisms of tissue protection is a point of controversy, particularly distinguishing the direct actions from the indirect downstream effects of hydrogen sulfide. This point of controversy is particularly pertinent in inflammation research.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
China 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 30%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Chemistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,847
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets
#781
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,063
of 160,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 160,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.