↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of methods for the analysis of airway macrophage particulate load from induced sputum, a potential biomarker of air pollution exposure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Comparison of methods for the analysis of airway macrophage particulate load from induced sputum, a potential biomarker of air pollution exposure
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0135-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Jary, Jamie Rylance, Latifa Patel, Stephen B. Gordon, Kevin Mortimer

Abstract

Air pollution is associated with a high burden or morbidity and mortality, but exposure cannot be quantified rapidly or cheaply. The particulate burden of macrophages from induced sputum may provide a biomarker. We compare the feasibility of two methods for digital quantification of airway macrophage particulate load. Induced sputum samples were processed and analysed using ImageJ and Image SXM software packages. We compare each package by resources and time required. 13 adequate samples were obtained from 21 patients. Median particulate load was 0.38 μm(2) (ImageJ) and 4.0 % of the total cellular area of macrophages (Image SXM), with no correlation between results obtained using the two methods (correlation coefficient = -0.42, p = 0.256). Image SXM took longer than ImageJ (median 26 vs 54 mins per participant, p = 0.008) and was less accurate based on visual assessment of the output images. ImageJ's method is subjective and requires well-trained staff. Induced sputum has limited application as a screening tool due to the resources required. Limitations of both methods compared here were found: the heterogeneity of induced sputum appearances makes automated image analysis challenging. Further work should refine methodologies and assess inter- and intra-observer reliability, if these methods are to be developed for investigating the relationship of particulate and inflammatory response in the macrophage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,793,966
of 11,190,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#286
of 835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,872
of 252,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#15
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,190,029 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 252,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.