↓ Skip to main content

Secondary Hematoma Expansion and Perihemorrhagic Edema after Intracerebral Hemorrhage: From Bench Work to Practical Aspects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Secondary Hematoma Expansion and Perihemorrhagic Edema after Intracerebral Hemorrhage: From Bench Work to Practical Aspects
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krista Lim-Hing, Fred Rincon

Abstract

Intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) represent about 10-15% of all strokes per year in the United States alone. Key variables influencing the long-term outcome after ICH are hematoma size and growth. Although death may occur at the time of the hemorrhage, delayed neurologic deterioration frequently occurs with hematoma growth and neuronal injury of the surrounding tissue. Perihematoma edema has also been implicated as a contributing factor for delayed neurologic deterioration after ICH. Cerebral edema results from both blood-brain barrier disruption and local generation of osmotically active substances. Inflammatory cellular mediators, activation of the complement, by-products of coagulation and hemolysis such as thrombin and fibrin, and hemoglobin enter the brain and induce a local and systemic inflammatory reaction. These complex cascades lead to apoptosis or neuronal injury. By identifying the major modulators of cerebral edema after ICH, a therapeutic target to counter degenerative events may be forthcoming.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 41%
Neuroscience 16 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,864
of 11,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,104
of 309,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#122
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 309,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.