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 |
Predicting survival of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis using GAP score: a nationwide cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12931-016-0454-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sang Hoon Lee, Song Yee Kim, Dong Soon Kim, Young Whan Kim, Man Pyo Chung, Soo Taek Uh, Choon Sik Park, Sung Hwan Jeong, Yong Bum Park, Hong Lyeol Lee, Jong Wook Shin, Eun Joo Lee, Jin Hwa Lee, Yangin Jegal, Hyun Kyung Lee, Yong Hyun Kim, Jin Woo Song, Sung Woo Park, Moo Suk Park |
| Abstract |
The clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) varies widely. Although the GAP model is useful for predicting mortality, survivals have not yet been validated for each GAP score. We aimed to elucidate how prognosis is related to GAP score and GAP stage in IPF patients. The Korean Interstitial Lung Disease Study Group conducted a national survey to evaluate various characteristics in IPF patients from 2003 to 2007. Patients were diagnosed according to the 2002 criteria of the ATS/ERS. We enrolled 1,685 patients with IPF; 1,262 had undergone DLCO measurement. Patients were stratified based on GAP score (0-7): GAP score Group 0 (n = 26), Group 1 (n = 150), Group 2 (n = 208), Group 3 (n = 376), Group 4 (n = 317), Group 5 (n = 138), Group 6 (n = 39), and Group 7 (n = 8). Higher GAP score and GAP stage were associated with a poorer prognosis (p < 0.001, respectively). Survival time in Group 3 was lower than those in Groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.043 and p = 0.039, respectively), and higher than those in groups 4, 5, and 6 (p = 0.043, p = 0.032, and p = 0.003, respectively). Gender, age, and DLCO (%) differed significantly between Groups 2 and 3. All four variables in the GAP model differed significantly between Groups 3 and 4. The GAP system showed significant predictive ability for mortality in IPF patients. However, prognosis in IPF patients with a GAP score of 3 were significantly different from those in the other stage I groups and stage II groups of Asian patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
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 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#2,216
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,639
of 324,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#34
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 324,004 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.