↓ Skip to main content

Langerhans Cell Homeostasis and Turnover After Nonmyeloablative and Myeloablative Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Transplantation, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Langerhans Cell Homeostasis and Turnover After Nonmyeloablative and Myeloablative Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Published in
Transplantation, September 2014
DOI 10.1097/tp.0000000000000097
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Mielcarek, Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, Robert C. Hackman, Jeremy Price, Barry E. Storer, Brent L. Wood, Marylene Leboeuf, Milena Bogunovic, Rainer Storb, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Mary E. Flowers, Paul J. Martin, Matthew Collin, Miriam Merad

Abstract

Langerhans cells (LCs) are self-renewing epidermal myeloid cells that can migrate and mature into dendritic cells. Recipient LCs that survive cytotoxic therapy given in preparation for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation may prime donor T cells to mediate cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). This possible association, however, has not been investigated in the setting of nonmyeloablative allografting.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 20%
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 11 April 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Transplantation
#5,490
of 7,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,327
of 258,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplantation
#54
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 258,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.