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 |
Macrophages: friend or foe in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12931-018-0864-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lei Zhang, Yi Wang, Guorao Wu, Weining Xiong, Weikuan Gu, Cong-Yi Wang |
| Abstract |
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a prototype of lethal, chronic, progressive interstitial lung disease of unknown etiology. Over the past decade, macrophage has been recognized to play a significant role in IPF pathogenesis. Depending on the local microenvironments, macrophages can be polarized to either classically activated (M1) or alternatively activated (M2) phenotypes. In general, M1 macrophages are responsible for wound healing after alveolar epithelial injury, while M2 macrophages are designated to resolve wound healing processes or terminate inflammatory responses in the lung. IPF is a pathological consequence resulted from altered wound healing in response to persistent lung injury. In this review, we intend to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the process of macrophage polarization and its mediators in the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis. Our goal is to update the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the initiation and progression of IPF, and by which, we expect to provide help for developing effective therapeutic strategies in clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 267 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 17% |
| Researcher | 37 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 41 | 15% |
| Unknown | 81 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 39 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 29 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 12% |
| Unknown | 88 | 33% |
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 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,404,087
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#435
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,834
of 345,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#18
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 345,662 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 67 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 73% of its contemporaries.