↓ Skip to main content

Complement activation in the injured central nervous system: another dual-edged sword?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, June 2012
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Complement activation in the injured central nervous system: another dual-edged sword?
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-9-137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Faith H Brennan, Aileen J Anderson, Stephen M Taylor, Trent M Woodruff, Marc J Ruitenberg

Abstract

The complement system, a major component of the innate immune system, is becoming increasingly recognised as a key participant in physiology and disease. The awareness that immunological mediators support various aspects of both normal central nervous system (CNS) function and pathology has led to a renaissance of complement research in neuroscience. Various studies have revealed particularly novel findings on the wide-ranging involvement of complement in neural development, synapse elimination and maturation of neural networks, as well as the progression of pathology in a range of chronic neurodegenerative disorders, and more recently, neurotraumatic events, where rapid disruption of neuronal homeostasis potently triggers complement activation. The purpose of this review is to summarise recent findings on complement activation and acquired brain or spinal cord injury, i.e. ischaemic-reperfusion injury or stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI), highlighting the potential for complement-targeted therapeutics to alleviate the devastating consequences of these neurological conditions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 20%
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Other 13 9%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 21%
Neuroscience 23 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 34 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 June 2012.
All research outputs
#14,602,083
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#1,633
of 2,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,161
of 164,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#37
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 164,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.