↓ Skip to main content

Fine particulate matter in acute exacerbation of COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Fine particulate matter in acute exacerbation of COPD
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lei Ni, Chia-Chen Chuang, Li Zuo

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common airway disorder. In particular, acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) can significantly reduce pulmonary function. The majority of AECOPD episodes are attributed to infections, although environmental stress also plays a role. Increasing urbanization and associated air pollution, especially in developing countries, have been shown to contribute to COPD pathogenesis. Elevated levels of particulate matter (PM) in polluted air are strongly correlated with the onset and development of various respiratory diseases. In this review, we have conducted an extensive literature search of recent studies of the role of PM2.5 (fine PM) in AECOPD. PM2.5 leads to AECOPD via inflammation, oxidative stress (OS), immune dysfunction, and altered airway epithelial structure and microbiome. Reducing PM2.5 levels is a viable approach to lower AECOPD incidence, attenuate COPD progression and decrease the associated healthcare burden.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 18%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 12%
Environmental Science 17 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 4%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 31 22%
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 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,672
of 13,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,202
of 283,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#61
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 283,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.