↓ Skip to main content

Sex differences in ischemic heart disease and heart failure biomarkers

Overview of attention for article published in Biology of Sex Differences, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Sex differences in ischemic heart disease and heart failure biomarkers
Published in
Biology of Sex Differences, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13293-018-0201-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimia Sobhani, Diana K. Nieves Castro, Qin Fu, Roberta A. Gottlieb, Jennifer E. Van Eyk, C. Noel Bairey Merz

Abstract

Since 1984, each year, more women than men die of ischemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure (HF), yet more men are diagnosed. Because biomarker assessment is often the first diagnostic employed in such patients, understanding biomarker differences in men vs. women may improve female morbidity and mortality rates.Some key examples of cardiac biomarker utility based on sex include contemporary use of "unisex" troponin reference intervals under-diagnosing myocardial necrosis in women; greater use of hsCRP in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could lead to better stratification in women; and greater use of BNP with sex-specific thresholds in ACS could also lead to more timely risk stratification in women.Accurate diagnosis, appropriate risk management, and monitoring are key in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases; however, the assessment tools used must also be useful or at least assessed for utility in both sexes. In other words, going forward, we need to evaluate sex-specific reference intervals or cutoffs for laboratory tests used to assess cardiovascular disease to help close the diagnostic gap between men and women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 27 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 29 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,084,426
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from Biology of Sex Differences
#251
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,607
of 351,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology of Sex Differences
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 351,300 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 61% of its contemporaries.