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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Modelling upper respiratory tract diseases: getting grips on host-microbe interactions in chronic rhinosinusitis using in vitro technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbiome, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40168-018-0462-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlotte De Rudder, Marta Calatayud Arroyo, Sarah Lebeer, Tom Van de Wiele |
| Abstract |
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic inflammation of the mucosa of the nose and paranasal sinuses affecting approximately 11% of the adult population in Europe. Inadequate immune responses, as well as a dysbiosis of the sinonasal microbiota, have been put forward as aetiological factors of the disease. However, despite the prevalence of this disease, there is no consensus on the aetiology and mechanisms of pathogenesis of CRS. Further research requires in vitro models mimicking the healthy and diseased host environment along with the sinonasal microbiota. This review aims to provide an overview of CRS model systems and proposes in vitro modelling strategies to conduct mechanistic research in an ecological framework on the sinonasal microbiota and its interactions with the host in health and CRS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,801,017
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,032
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,697
of 326,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#48
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 326,487 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.