↓ Skip to main content

Functional Role of Neural Injury in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Functional Role of Neural Injury in Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2012.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian P. Saboisky, Jane E. Butler, Simon C. Gandevia, Danny J. Eckert

Abstract

The causes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are multifactorial. Neural injury affecting the upper airway muscles due to repetitive exposure to intermittent hypoxia and/or mechanical strain resulting from snoring and recurrent upper airway closure have been proposed to contribute to OSA disease progression. Multiple studies have demonstrated altered sensory and motor function in patients with OSA using a variety of neurophysiological and histological approaches. However, the extent to which the alterations contribute to impairments in upper airway muscle function, and thus OSA disease progression, remains uncertain. This brief review, primarily focused on data in humans, summarizes: (1) the evidence for upper airway sensorimotor injury in OSA and (2) current understanding of how these changes affect upper airway function and their potential to change OSA progression. Some unresolved questions including possible treatment targets are noted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 12 21%
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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,912,452
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,379
of 11,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,925
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#36
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 244,068 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 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 67% of its contemporaries.