↓ Skip to main content

Effector T Helper Cell Subsets in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
294 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
Effector T Helper Cell Subsets in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanbeena Imam, Sungtae Park, Mark H. Kaplan, Matthew R. Olson

Abstract

The gastrointestinal tract is a site of high immune challenge, as it must maintain a delicate balance between tolerating luminal contents and generating an immune response toward pathogens. CD4+ T cells are key in mediating the host protective and homeostatic responses. Yet, CD4+ T cells are also known to be the main drivers of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) when this balance is perturbed. Many subsets of CD4+ T cells have been identified as players in perpetuating chronic intestinal inflammation. Over the last few decades, understanding of how each subset of Th cells plays a role has dramatically increased. Simultaneously, this has allowed development of therapeutic innovation targeting specific molecules rather than broad immunosuppressive agents. Here, we review the emerging evidence of how each subset functions in promoting and sustaining the chronic inflammation that characterizes IBD.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 294 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 18%
Researcher 45 15%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Master 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 94 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 45 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 9%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 101 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,169,998
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#4,479
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,439
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#152
of 749 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 85% 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 342,877 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 749 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.