↓ Skip to main content

Multipotent adult progenitor cells decrease cold ischemic injury in ex vivo perfused human lungs: an initial pilot and feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Transplantation Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Multipotent adult progenitor cells decrease cold ischemic injury in ex vivo perfused human lungs: an initial pilot and feasibility study
Published in
Transplantation Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/2047-1440-3-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saverio La Francesca, Anthony E Ting, Jason Sakamoto, Jessica Rhudy, Nicholas R Bonenfant, Zachary D Borg, Fernanda F Cruz, Meagan Goodwin, Nicholas A Lehman, Jennifer M Taggart, Robert Deans, Daniel J Weiss

Abstract

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a significant cause of early morbidity and mortality following lung transplantation. Improved organ preservation techniques will decrease ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) contributing to PGD. Adult bone marrow-derived adherent stem cells, including mesenchymal stromal (stem) cells (MSCs) and multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs), have potent anti-inflammatory actions, and we thus postulated that intratracheal MAPC administration during donor lung processing would decrease IRI. The goal of the study was therefore to determine if intratracheal MAPC instillation would decrease lung injury and inflammation in an ex vivo human lung explant model of prolonged cold storage and subsequent reperfusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 25%

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 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#5,011,130
of 21,321,610 outputs
Outputs from Transplantation Research
#9
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,279
of 253,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplantation Research
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,610 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one scored the same or higher as 30 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 253,589 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.