↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Natural killer cells in sepsis - guilty or not guilty?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Bench-to-bedside review: Natural killer cells in sepsis - guilty or not guilty?
Published in
Critical Care, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12700
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes, Jean-Marc Cavaillon, Minou Adib-Conquy

Abstract

Bacterial sepsis and septic shock are complex inflammatory disorders associated with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. In the most severe cases of infection, an overzealous release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and inflammatory mediators by activated leukocytes, epithelial cells and endothelial cells, known as a 'cytokine storm', leads to deleterious effects such as organ dysfunction and even death. By the end of the 20th century, natural killer (NK) cells were for the first time identified as important players during sepsis. The role of this cell type was, however, double-edged, either 'angel' or 'devil' depending upon the bacterial infection model under study. Bacterial sensors (such as Toll-like receptors) have recently been shown to be expressed at the protein level in these cells. In addition, NK cells are important sources of interferon-γ and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, which are pro-inflammatory cytokines necessary to fight infection but can contribute to deleterious inflammation as well. Interestingly, an adaptative response occurs aimed to silence them, similar to the well-known phenomenon of endotoxin reprogramming.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Other 4 11%
Lecturer 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 13 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 42%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 December 2014.
All research outputs
#5,132,421
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,341
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,127
of 212,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#26
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 212,202 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.