↓ Skip to main content

Proteomics in asthma: the clinicians were right after all, were not they?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Proteomics in asthma: the clinicians were right after all, were not they?
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0170-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anirban Sinha, Peter J. Sterk

Abstract

Clinical disease phenotypes with underlying information of molecular and biological signatures for the same, is a prerequisite for improving medical care and developing more effective, stratified management strategies. This commentary reviews the research carried out by Cao et al. to unravel biological networks associated with different clinical categories of asthma. It finally comments on the utility of using data from multiple platforms aided by integrated systems approaches to effectively find out the obvious underlying physiological disease signatures related to clinical disease sub-types.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 100%

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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#11,240,425
of 17,366,233 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#172
of 352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,689
of 329,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,366,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 329,235 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 37 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.