↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Sepsis and septic shock - the potential of gene arrays

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2012
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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Clinical review: Sepsis and septic shock - the potential of gene arrays
Published in
Critical Care, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc10537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hector R Wong

Abstract

Over the past decade several investigators have applied microarray technology and related bioinformatic approaches to clinical sepsis and septic shock, thus allowing for an assessment of how, or if, this branch of genomic medicine has meaningfully impacted the field of sepsis research. The ability to simultaneously and efficiently measure the steady-state mRNA abundance of thousands of transcripts from a given tissue source (that is, 'transcriptomics') has provided an unprecedented opportunity to gain a broader, genome-level 'picture' of complex and heterogeneous clinical syndromes such as sepsis. A trancriptomic approach to sepsis and septic shock is technically challenging on multiple levels, but nonetheless modest, tangible advances are being realized. These include a genome-level understanding of the complexity of sepsis and septic shock, identification of novel candidate pathways and targets for potential intervention, discovery of novel, candidate diagnostic and stratification biomarkers, and the ability to stratify patients into clinically relevant, expression-based subclasses. The challenges moving forward include robust validation studies, standardization of technical approaches, standardization and further development of analytical algorithms, and large-scale collaborations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 16 19%
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 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,238,666
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,584
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,659
of 254,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#26
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 254,146 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.