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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Novel Automated Blood Separations Validate Whole Cell Biomarkers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0022430 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas E. Burger, Limei Wang, Liqin Ban, Yoshiaki Okubo, Willem M. Kühtreiber, Ashley K. Leichliter, Denise L. Faustman |
| Abstract |
Progress in clinical trials in infectious disease, autoimmunity, and cancer is stymied by a dearth of successful whole cell biomarkers for peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs). Successful biomarkers could help to track drug effects at early time points in clinical trials to prevent costly trial failures late in development. One major obstacle is the inaccuracy of Ficoll density centrifugation, the decades-old method of separating PBLs from the abundant red blood cells (RBCs) of fresh blood samples. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 27% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,729,874
of 23,292,144 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#66,904
of 199,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,041
of 120,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#624
of 2,215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,292,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 120,210 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,215 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 71% of its contemporaries.