↓ Skip to main content

Why do patients get idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis? Current concepts in the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
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)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Why do patients get idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis? Current concepts in the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0412-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre-Simon Bellaye, Martin Kolb

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a devastating lung disease of unknown origin. Recent findings suggest that IPF results from multiple factors that eventually lead to interstitial lung injury. In the pathogenesis it is likely that complex relationships between genetic predispositions, environmental exposures, and lung infections promote the fibrotic processes causing IPF; it is this complexity and the multiplicity of causes that make the population and clinical course of IPF so heterogeneous. Thus, it is clear that one common factor driving IPF pathogenesis in all patients would be far too simplified of an understanding. In recent years, efforts have been made in finding therapeutic strategies that target disease progression rather than disease onset. The biochemical composition and abnormal stiffness of the matrix might be crucial in controlling the cellular phenotype in fibrotic lungs that promotes disease progression and persistence. Though there has been substantial progress in the IPF field in recent years, much more work is required in order to improve the prognosis associated with this disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,923,321
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,988
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,296
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#69
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 274,665 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 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.