↓ Skip to main content

Inflammatory and immune responses in the cochlea: potential therapeutic targets for sensorineural hearing loss

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Inflammatory and immune responses in the cochlea: potential therapeutic targets for sensorineural hearing loss
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masato Fujioka, Hideyuki Okano, Kaoru Ogawa

Abstract

The inner ear was previously assumed to be an "immune-privileged" organ due to the existence of its tight junction-based blood-labyrinth barrier. However, studies performed during the past decade revealed that the mesenchymal region of the cochlea, including its lateral wall, is a common site of inflammation. Neutrophils do not enter this region, which is consistent with the old dogma; however, bone marrow-derived resident macrophages are always present in the spiral ligament of the lateral wall and are activated in response to various types of insults, including noise exposure, ischemia, mitochondrial damage, and surgical stress. Recent studies have also revealed another type of immune cell, called perivascular melanocyte-like macrophages (PVM/Ms), in the stria vascularis. These dedicated antigen-presenting cells also control vascular contraction and permeability. This review discusses a series of reports regarding inflammatory/immune cells in the cochlear lateral wall, the pathways involved in cochlear damage and their potential as therapeutic targets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Other 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 20%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 34 30%
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 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#18,387,239
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#8,187
of 16,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,548
of 352,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#30
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,011 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 352,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.