↓ Skip to main content

Mechanobiological Feedback in Pulmonary Vascular Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Mechanobiological Feedback in Pulmonary Vascular Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul B. Dieffenbach, Marcy Maracle, Daniel J. Tschumperlin, Laura E. Fredenburgh

Abstract

Vascular stiffening in the pulmonary arterial bed is increasingly recognized as an early disease marker and contributor to right ventricular workload in pulmonary hypertension. Changes in pulmonary artery stiffness throughout the pulmonary vascular tree lead to physiologic alterations in pressure and flow characteristics that may contribute to disease progression. These findings have led to a greater focus on the potential contributions of extracellular matrix remodeling and mechanical signaling to pulmonary hypertension pathogenesis. Several recent studies have demonstrated that the cellular response to vascular stiffness includes upregulation of signaling pathways that precipitate further vascular remodeling, a process known as mechanobiological feedback. The extracellular matrix modifiers, mechanosensors, and mechanotransducers responsible for this process have become increasingly well-recognized. In this review, we discuss the impact of vascular stiffening on pulmonary hypertension morbidity and mortality, evidence in favor of mechanobiological feedback in pulmonary hypertension pathogenesis, and the major contributors to mechanical signaling in the pulmonary vasculature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 17%
Engineering 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 32%
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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,359,953
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,296
of 13,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,957
of 330,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#238
of 479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,847 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 61% 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 330,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 479 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.