↓ Skip to main content

Pathophysiology and biomarkers of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Pathophysiology and biomarkers of acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/2052-0492-2-32
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seitaro Fujishima

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is defined as an acute-onset, progressive, hypoxic condition with radiographic bilateral lung infiltration, which develops after several diseases or injuries, and is not derived from hydrostatic pulmonary edema. One specific pathological finding of ARDS is diffuse alveolar damage. In 2012, in an effort to increase diagnostic specificity, a revised definition of ARDS was published in JAMA. However, no new parameters or biomarkers were adopted by the revised definition. Discriminating between ARDS and other similar diseases is critically important; however, only a few biomarkers are currently available for diagnostic purposes. Furthermore, predicting the severity, response to therapy, or outcome of the illness is also important for developing treatment strategies for each patient. However, the PaO2/FIO2 ratio is currently the sole clinical parameter used for this purpose. In parallel with progress in understanding the pathophysiology of ARDS, various humoral factors induced by inflammation and molecules derived from activated cells or injured tissues have been shown as potential biomarkers that may be applied in clinical practice. In this review, the current understanding of the basic pathophysiology of ARDS and associated candidate biomarkers will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 182 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Other 16 9%
Other 45 24%
Unknown 39 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 40 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,296,345
of 24,072,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#111
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,292
of 231,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,072,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 231,530 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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