↓ Skip to main content

Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, May 2018
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
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00969
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marko Radic, Debendra Pattanaik

Abstract

The primary anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by the production of antibodies that bind the phospholipid-binding protein β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) or that directly recognize negatively charged membrane phospholipids in a manner that may contribute to arterial or venous thrombosis. Clinically, the binding of antibodies to β2GPI could contribute to pathogenesis by formation of immune complexes or modification of coagulation steps that operate along cell surfaces. However, additional events are likely to play a role in pathogenesis, including platelet and endothelial cell activation. Recent studies focus on neutrophil release of chromatin in the form of neutrophil extracellular traps as an important disease contributor. Jointly, the participation of both the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system in aspects of the APS make the complete understanding of crucial steps in pathogenesis extremely difficult. Only coordinated and comprehensive analyses, carried out in different clinical and research settings, are likely to advance the understanding of this complex disease condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 33 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 August 2020.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#12,128
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,403
of 341,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#358
of 724 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 341,525 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 724 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.