↓ Skip to main content

Cell-based therapy in lung regenerative medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Regenerative Medicine Research, April 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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Cell-based therapy in lung regenerative medicine
Published in
Regenerative Medicine Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/2050-490x-2-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jibing Yang, Zhenquan Jia

Abstract

Chronic lung diseases are becoming a leading cause of death worldwide. There are few effective treatments for those patients and less choices to prevent the exacerbation or even reverse the progress of the diseases. Over the past decade, cell-based therapies using stem cells to regenerate lung tissue have experienced a rapid growth in a variety of animal models for distinct lung diseases. This novel approach offers great promise for the treatment of several devastating and incurable lung diseases, including emphysema, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. In this review, we provide a concise summary of the current knowledge on the attributes of endogenous lung epithelial stem/progenitor cells (EpiSPCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in both animal models and translational studies. We also describe the promise and challenges of tissue bioengineering in lung regenerative medicine. The therapeutic potential of MSCs is further discussed in IPF and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sri Lanka 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,191,334
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Regenerative Medicine Research
#1
of 25 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,378
of 239,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regenerative Medicine Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one scored the same or higher as 24 of them.
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 239,865 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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