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 |
Physiological Modeling of Responses to Upper Versus Lower Lobe Lung Volume Reduction in Homogeneous Emphysema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2012.00387 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arschang Valipour, Mordechai R. Kramer, Franz Stanzel, Axel Kempa, Sherwin Asadi, Oren Fruchter, Ralf Eberhardt, Felix J. Herth, Edward P. Ingenito |
| Abstract |
Rationale: In clinical trials, homogeneous emphysema patients have responded well to upper lobe volume reduction but not lower lobe volume reduction. Materials/Methods: To understand the physiological basis for this observation, a computer model was developed to simulate the effects of upper and lower lobe lung volume reduction on RV/TLC and lung recoil in homogeneous emphysema. Results: Patients with homogeneous emphysema received either upper or lower lobe volume reduction therapy based on findings of radionucleotide scintigraphy scanning. CT analysis of lobar volumes showed that patients undergoing upper (n = 18; -265 mL/site) and lower lobe treatment (LLT; n = 11; -217 mL/site) experienced similar reductions in lung volume. However, only upper lobe treatment (ULT) improved FEV(1) (+11.1 ± 14.7 versus -4.4 ± 15.8%) and RV/TLC (-5.4 ± 8.1 versus -2.4 ± 8.6%). Model simulations provided an unexpected explanation for this response. Increases in transpulmonary pressure subsequent to volume reduction increased RV/TLC in upper lobe alveoli, while caudal shifts in airway closure decreased RV/TLC in lower lobe alveoli. ULT, which eliminates apical alveoli with high RV/TLC values, lowers the average RV/TLC of the lung. Conversely, LLT, which eliminates caudal alveoli with low RV/TLC values, has less effect. Conclusion: LLT in homogeneous emphysema is uniformly less effective than ULT. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 27% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 41% |
| Engineering | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 9% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
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 01 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,167,959
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,273
of 13,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,189
of 244,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 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 13,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 244,102 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 309 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.