↓ Skip to main content

Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein Is Not an Early Marker of Injury in Perinatal Asphyxia and Hypoxic–Ischemic Encephalopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein Is Not an Early Marker of Injury in Perinatal Asphyxia and Hypoxic–Ischemic Encephalopathy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann-Marie Looney, Caroline Ahearne, Geraldine B. Boylan, Deirdre M. Murray

Abstract

Brain-specific glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has been suggested as a potential biomarker for hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) in newborns (1, 2). Previous studies have shown increased levels in post-natal blood samples. However, its ability to guide therapeutic intervention in HIE is unknown. Therapeutic hypothermia for HIE must be initiated within 6 h of birth, therefore a clinically useful marker of injury would have to be available immediately following delivery. The goal of our study was to examine the ability of GFAP to predict grade of encephalopathy and neurological outcome when measured in umbilical cord blood (UCB). Infants with suspected perinatal asphyxia (PA) and HIE were enrolled in a single, tertiary maternity hospital, where UCB was drawn, processed, and bio-banked at birth. Expression levels of GFAP were measured by ELISA. In total, 169 infants (83 controls, 56 PA, 30 HIE) were included in the study. GFAP levels were not increased in UCB of case infants (PA/HIE) when compared to healthy controls or when divided into specific grades of HIE. Additionally, no correlation was found between UCB levels of GFAP and outcome at 36 months.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 28%
Researcher 5 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Psychology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 28%

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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,324,934
of 21,443,788 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,892
of 10,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,884
of 402,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,443,788 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 402,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.