| Title |
Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases: An Update on the Classification from the International Union of Immunological Societies Expert Committee for Primary Immunodeficiency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00162 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Waleed Al-Herz, Aziz Bousfiha, Jean-Laurent Casanova, Talal Chatila, Mary Ellen Conley, Charlotte Cunningham-Rundles, Amos Etzioni, Jose Luis Franco, H. Bobby Gaspar, Steven M. Holland, Christoph Klein, Shigeaki Nonoyama, Hans D. Ochs, Erik Oksenhendler, Capucine Picard, Jennifer M. Puck, Kate Sullivan, Mimi L. K. Tang |
| Abstract |
We report the updated classification of primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) compiled by the Expert Committee of the International Union of Immunological Societies. In comparison to the previous version, more than 30 new gene defects are reported in this updated version. In addition, we have added a table of acquired defects that are phenocopies of PIDs. For each disorder, the key clinical and laboratory features are provided. This classification is the most up-to-date catalog of all known PIDs and acts as a current reference of the knowledge of these conditions and is an important aid for the molecular diagnosis of patients with these rare diseases. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 308 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 51 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 12% |
| Other | 30 | 9% |
| Other | 73 | 23% |
| Unknown | 46 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 129 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 51 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 34 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 26 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Unknown | 62 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,938,144
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#5,385
of 32,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,006
of 243,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#19
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 243,517 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.