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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Collection of Aerosolized Human Cytokines Using Teflon® Filters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0035814 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer H. McKenzie, James J. McDevitt, M. Patricia Fabian, Grace M. Hwang, Donald K. Milton |
| Abstract |
Collection of exhaled breath samples for the analysis of inflammatory biomarkers is an important area of research aimed at improving our ability to diagnose, treat and understand the mechanisms of chronic pulmonary disease. Current collection methods based on condensation of water vapor from exhaled breath yield biomarker levels at or near the detection limits of immunoassays contributing to problems with reproducibility and validity of biomarker measurements. In this study, we compare the collection efficiency of two aerosol-to-liquid sampling devices to a filter-based collection method for recovery of dilute laboratory generated aerosols of human cytokines so as to identify potential alternatives to exhaled breath condensate collection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 24% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 4 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 18% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
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 July 2020.
All research outputs
#14,725,727
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#122,859
of 193,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,215
of 163,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,267
of 3,708 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 163,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,708 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.