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 |
A Practical Approach to Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Using the T Cell Receptor Excision Circle Assay
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01470 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica S. Thakar, Mary K. Hintermeyer, Miranda G. Gries, John M. Routes, James W. Verbsky |
| Abstract |
Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a life-threatening condition of newborns and infants caused by defects in genes involved in T cell development. Newborn screening (NBS) for SCID using the T cell receptor excision circle (TREC) assay began in Wisconsin in 2008 and has been adopted or is being implemented by all states in 2017. It has been established that NBS using the TREC assay is extremely sensitive to detect SCID in the newborn period. Some controversies remain regarding how screening positives are handled by individual states, including when to perform confirmatory flow cytometry, what is the necessary diagnostic workup of patients, what infection prophylaxis measures should be taken, and when hematopoietic stem cell transplantation should occur. In addition, the TREC can also assay detect infants with T cell lymphopenia who are not severe enough to be considered SCID; management of these infants is also evolving. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 46% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,932,988
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#7,408
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,938
of 342,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#186
of 619 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,537 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 76% 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 342,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 619 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.