↓ Skip to main content

Autoantibodies in Systemic Sclerosis: Unanswered Questions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Autoantibodies in Systemic Sclerosis: Unanswered Questions
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristiane Kayser, Marvin J. Fritzler

Abstract

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disease characterized by vascular abnormalities, and cutaneous and visceral fibrosis. Serum autoantibodies directed to multiple intracellular antigens are present in more than 95% of patients and are considered a hallmark of SSc. They are helpful biomarkers for the early diagnosis of SSc and are associated with distinctive clinical manifestations. With the advent of more sensitive, multiplexed immunoassays, new and old questions about the relevance of autoantibodies in SSc are emerging. In this review, we discuss the clinical relevance of autoantibodies in SSc emphasizing the more recently published data. Moreover, we will summarize recent advances regarding the stability of SSc autoantibodies over the course of disease, whether they are mutually exclusive and their potential roles in the disease pathogenesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 172 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Researcher 22 13%
Other 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 46 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 39%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 53 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,307,144
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#3,587
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,149
of 278,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#24
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 278,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.