↓ Skip to main content

Arsenic immunotoxicity: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Arsenic immunotoxicity: a review
Published in
Environmental Health, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-12-73
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nygerma L Dangleben, Christine F Skibola, Martyn T Smith

Abstract

Exposure to arsenic (As) is a global public health problem because of its association with various cancers and numerous other pathological effects, and millions of people worldwide are exposed to As on a regular basis. Increasing lines of evidence indicate that As may adversely affect the immune system, but its specific effects on immune function are poorly understood. Therefore, we conducted a literature search of non-cancer immune-related effects associated with As exposure and summarized the known immunotoxicological effects of As in humans, animals and in vitro models. Overall, the data show that chronic exposure to As has the potential to impair vital immune responses which could lead to increased risk of infections and chronic diseases, including various cancers. Although animal and in vitro models provide some insight into potential mechanisms of the As-related immunotoxicity observed in human populations, further investigation, particularly in humans, is needed to better understand the relationship between As exposure and the development of disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 20%
Student > Master 26 16%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Chemistry 13 8%
Environmental Science 10 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 37 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,147,545
of 21,331,631 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#626
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,719
of 179,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,331,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 179,884 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them