↓ Skip to main content

Vascular disruption and blood–brain barrier dysfunction in intracerebral hemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Vascular disruption and blood–brain barrier dysfunction in intracerebral hemorrhage
Published in
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-8118-11-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard F Keep, Ningna Zhou, Jianming Xiang, Anuska V Andjelkovic, Ya Hua, Guohua Xi

Abstract

This article reviews current knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the initial hemorrhage and secondary blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction in primary spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in adults. Multiple etiologies are associated with ICH, for example, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, vascular malformations and coagulopathies (genetic or drug-induced). After the initial bleed, there can be continued bleeding over the first 24 hours, so-called hematoma expansion, which is associated with adverse outcomes. A number of clinical trials are focused on trying to limit such expansion. Significant progress has been made on the causes of BBB dysfunction after ICH at the molecular and cell signaling level. Blood components (e.g. thrombin, hemoglobin, iron) and the inflammatory response to those components play a large role in ICH-induced BBB dysfunction. There are current clinical trials of minimally invasive hematoma removal and iron chelation which may limit such dysfunction. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the initial hemorrhage and secondary BBB dysfunction in ICH is vital for developing methods to prevent and treat this devastating form of stroke.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 142 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 19%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 8 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Neuroscience 25 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 34 23%
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 15 August 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#358
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,326
of 242,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 242,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 2 of them.