↓ Skip to main content

Forced expiration measurements in mouse models of obstructive and restrictive lung diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Forced expiration measurements in mouse models of obstructive and restrictive lung diseases
Published in
Respiratory Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0610-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fien C. Devos, André Maaske, Annette Robichaud, Lore Pollaris, Sven Seys, Carolina Aznar Lopez, Erik Verbeken, Matthias Tenbusch, Rik Lories, Benoit Nemery, Peter HM Hoet, Jeroen AJ Vanoirbeek

Abstract

Pulmonary function measurements are important when studying respiratory disease models. Both resistance and compliance have been used to assess lung function in mice. Yet, it is not always clear how these parameters relate to forced expiration (FE)-related parameters, most commonly used in humans. We aimed to characterize FE measurements in four well-established mouse models of lung diseases. Detailed respiratory mechanics and FE measurements were assessed concurrently in Balb/c mice, using the forced oscillation and negative pressure-driven forced expiration techniques, respectively. Measurements were performed at baseline and following increasing methacholine challenges in control Balb/c mice as well as in four disease models: bleomycin-induced fibrosis, elastase-induced emphysema, LPS-induced acute lung injury and house dust mite-induced asthma. Respiratory mechanics parameters (airway resistance, tissue damping and tissue elastance) confirmed disease-specific phenotypes either at baseline or following methacholine challenge. Similarly, lung function defects could be detected in each disease model by at least one FE-related parameter (FEV0.1, FEF0.1, FVC, FEV0.1/FVC ratio and PEF) at baseline or during the methacholine provocation assay. FE-derived outcomes in four mouse disease models behaved similarly to changes found in human spirometry. Routine combined lung function assessments could increase the translational utility of mouse models.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Engineering 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,470,559
of 11,547,113 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#786
of 1,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,855
of 264,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#49
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,547,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 264,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.