↓ Skip to main content

Morphological features of bronchiectasis in patients with non-tuberculous mycobacteriosis and interstitial pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2022
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Morphological features of bronchiectasis in patients with non-tuberculous mycobacteriosis and interstitial pneumonia
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2022
DOI 10.1186/s13104-022-06156-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiori Tabe, Masaki Dobashi, Yoshiko Ishioka, Masamichi Itoga, Hisashi Tanaka, Kageaki Taima, Sadatomo Tasaka

Abstract

To compare the morphological features of bronchiectasis between patients with different underlying diseases, we performed quantitative analysis of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) images of 14 patients with non-tuberculous mycobacteriosis (NTM) and 13 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). A 3D image of the bronchial structure was made from HRCT data. Bronchiectasis was defined as abnormal dilatation of the bronchi with the diameter greater than that of the accompanying pulmonary artery. We measured the inner and outer diameters, wall area as %total airway cross sectional area (WA%), and wall thickness to airway diameter ratio (T/D) of the 4-8th generations of bronchi. In patients with IPF, the inner and outer diameters linearly decreased toward the distal bronchi. In contrast, the inner and outer diameters of NTM fluctuated. The coefficient of variation of the outer diameters of the 6-7th generations of bronchi was larger in the NTM patients than in those with IPF, whereas no significant difference was observed in the coefficient of variation of the inner diameters between the groups. In IPF patients, WA% and T/D varied between the generation of bronchi, but the coefficient of variation of WA% and T/D was relatively small in those with NTM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 67%
Other 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 67%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 17%
Neuroscience 1 17%
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 27 July 2022.
All research outputs
#20,420,242
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,578
of 4,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#342,345
of 431,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#47
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 431,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.