↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Applications of the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Diagnostic Panel

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Clinical Applications of the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Diagnostic Panel
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Wen, Marc E. Rothenberg

Abstract

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a recently recognized upper gastrointestinal allergic disorder characterized by esophageal dysfunction (e.g., dysphagia) and esophageal eosinophilia of ≥15 eosinophils/high-power field in patients who have persistent esophagitis even on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The histologic method is the gold standard of EoE diagnosis. However, EoE clinical symptoms do not always correlate with histology, and the histologic method has sensitivity and specificity issues due to the patchiness of EoE and the subjective nature of the method. The "EoE transcriptome" was initially discovered in 2006, which led to the invention of the EoE diagnostic panel (EDP). In addition to providing a definitive EoE diagnosis with high accuracy, the EDP has been useful in elucidating several key elements about the disease including the efficacy of specific drugs such as swallowed glucocorticoids and anti-IL-13 humanized antibody therapy, the relationship between EoE and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, and predicting the disease course and responsiveness to therapy. The EDP's long-term potential arises from its plasticity to incorporate new genes and uncover novel disease pathogenesis. We expect that the EDP will be increasingly helpful for personalized medicine approaches and improved diagnostics and disease monitoring.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 33%
Other 6 20%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,403,857
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,759
of 5,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,591
of 313,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#25
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 313,318 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 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 66% of its contemporaries.