↓ Skip to main content

Immunological and non-immunological mechanisms of allergic diseases in the elderly: biological and clinical characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in Immunity & Ageing, December 2017
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Immunological and non-immunological mechanisms of allergic diseases in the elderly: biological and clinical characteristics
Published in
Immunity & Ageing, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12979-017-0105-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriele Di Lorenzo, Danilo Di Bona, Federica Belluzzo, Luigi Macchia

Abstract

A better hygiene, a Westernized diet, air pollution, climate changes, and other factors that influence host microbiota, a key player in the induction and maintenance of immunoregulatory circuits and tolerance, are thought to be responsible for the increase of allergic diseases observed in the last years. The increase of allergic diseases in elderly is related to the presence of other factors as several comorbidities that should interfere with the development and the type of allergic reactions. A central role is played by immunosenescence responsible for modifying response to microbiota and triggering inflamm-ageing. In addition, in elderly there is a shift from Th1 responses vs. Th2, hence favouring allergic responses. Better understanding of the mechanisms of immunosenescence and its effects on allergic inflammation will most certainly lead to improved therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,569,845
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Immunity & Ageing
#127
of 384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,494
of 442,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunity & Ageing
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 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 384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 442,377 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.