↓ Skip to main content

Aluminium in Allergies and Allergen immunotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 703)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Aluminium in Allergies and Allergen immunotherapy
Published in
World Allergy Organization Journal, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40413-015-0060-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

Abstract

Aluminium is a hot topic in the current debate. Exposure occurs due to environmental, dietary and intentional exposure to aluminium, such as in vaccines where it was introduced in 1926. In spite of the fact that it is a typical Th2 adjuvant, aluminium redirects the immune response in systemic allergen immunotherapy (SIT) upon prolonged immunization. SIT in the US, and SLIT in general, are at present non-adjuvanted therapies, but in Europe aluminium is used as adjuvant in most SIT preparations. It enhances the safety of SIT by local deposition of the allergen. Undesired properties of aluminium adjuvants comprise acute and chronic inflammation at the injection site, its Th2 immune stimulatory capacity, its accumulation besides biodistribution in the body. The adjuvant and safety profile of aluminium adjuvants in allergy vaccines are discussed, as well as the need for putting modern delivery systems and adjuvants on the fast track.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 18 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 23 July 2020.
All research outputs
#940,958
of 21,360,625 outputs
Outputs from World Allergy Organization Journal
#37
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,874
of 231,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Allergy Organization Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,360,625 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 231,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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