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 |
How could we enhance translation of sepsis immunology to inform immunomodulation trials in sepsis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1715-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Shankar-Hari |
| Abstract |
Sepsis results in complex alterations to the immune system. Our understanding of how these alterations in immune responses could help characterize extreme immune phenotypes, identify biomarkers with the ability to stratify patients for therapeutic interventions, surrogates in the causal pathway of clinical end-points, and treatable traits are still rudimentary. A methodologically rigorous, consensus-based approach should enrich sepsis immune subpopulations to increase the probability of successful trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 64% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 47% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,364,036
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,645
of 6,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,141
of 327,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#64
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 327,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.