↓ Skip to main content

Proteomics in asthma: the clinicians were right after all, were not they?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
Proteomics in asthma: the clinicians were right after all, were not they?
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0170-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anirban Sinha, Peter J. Sterk

Abstract

Clinical disease phenotypes with underlying information of molecular and biological signatures for the same, is a prerequisite for improving medical care and developing more effective, stratified management strategies. This commentary reviews the research carried out by Cao et al. to unravel biological networks associated with different clinical categories of asthma. It finally comments on the utility of using data from multiple platforms aided by integrated systems approaches to effectively find out the obvious underlying physiological disease signatures related to clinical disease sub-types.

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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 100%
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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#571
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,917
of 339,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 339,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.