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 |
Luteolin as a therapeutic option for multiple sclerosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neuroinflammation, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-2094-6-29 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theoharis C Theoharides |
| Abstract |
Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains without an effective treatment in spite of intense research efforts. Interferon-beta (IFN-beta) reduces duration and severity of symptoms in many relapsing-remitting MS patients, but its mechanism of action is still not well understood. Moreover, IFN-beta and other available treatments must be given parenterally and have a variety of adverse effects. Certain naturally occurring flavonoids, such as luteolin, have anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, including inhibition of activated peripheral blood leukocytes from MS patients. Luteolin also inhibits mast cells, as well as mast cell-dependent T cell activation, recently implicated in MS pathogenesis. Moreover, luteolin and structurally similar flavonoids can inhibit experimental allergic allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS in rodents. An appropriate luteolin formulation that permits sufficient absorption and reduces its metabolism could be a useful adjuvant to IFN-beta for MS therapy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,980,592
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#807
of 2,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,923
of 181,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 181,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.