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 |
Clinical and Biological Markers in Hypereosinophilic Syndromes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2017.00240 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paneez Khoury, Michelle Makiya, Amy D. Klion |
| Abstract |
Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are rare, heterogeneous syndromes characterized by markedly elevated eosinophil counts in the blood and/or tissue and evidence of eosinophil-associated pathology. Although parasitic infections, drug hypersensitivity, and other disorders of defined etiology can present as HES (associated HES), treatment is directed at the underlying cause rather than the eosinophilia itself. A number of additional subtypes of HES have been described, based on clinical and laboratory features. These include (1) myeloid HES-a primary disorder of the myeloid lineage, (2) lymphocytic variant HES-eosinophilia driven by aberrant or clonal lymphocytes secreting eosinophil-promoting cytokines, (3) overlap HES-eosinophilia restricted to a single organ or organ system, (4) familial eosinophilia-a rare inherited form of HES, and (5) idiopathic HES. Since clinical manifestations, response to therapy, and prognosis all differ between HES subtypes, this review will focus on clinical and biological markers that serve as markers of disease activity in HES (excluding associated HES), including those that are likely to be useful only in specific clinical subtypes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,743,042
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,258
of 5,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,270
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#21
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 440,933 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.