↓ Skip to main content

Managing Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve Based on Aortic Root-Involvement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Managing Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve Based on Aortic Root-Involvement
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Norton, Bo Yang

Abstract

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) can be both sporadic and hereditary, is phenotypically variable, and genetically heterogeneous. The clinical presentation of BAV is diverse and commonly associated with a high prevalence of valvular dysfunction producing altered hemodynamics and aortic abnormalities (e.g., aneurysm and dissection). The thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) in BAV frequently involves the proximal aorta, including the aortic root, ascending aorta, and aortic arch, but spares the aorta distal to the aortic arch. While the ascending aortic aneurysm might be affected by both aortopathy and hemodynamics, the aortic root aneurysm is considered to be more of a consequence of aortopathy rather than hemodynamics, especially in younger patients. The management of aortic aneurysm in BAV has been very controversial because the molecular mechanism is unknown. Increasing evidence points toward the BAV root phenotype [aortic root dilation with aortic insufficiency (AI)] as having a higher risk of catastrophic aortic complications. We propose more aggressive surgical approaches toward the BAV with root phenotype.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,940,583
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,720
of 13,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,777
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#137
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.