↓ Skip to main content

Immunological characterization and transcription profiling of peripheral blood (PB) monocytes in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SPAD)…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, January 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Immunological characterization and transcription profiling of peripheral blood (PB) monocytes in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SPAD): case study
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-9-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harumi Jyonouchi, Lee Geng, Deanna L Streck, Gokce A Toruner

Abstract

There exists a small subset of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) characterized by fluctuating behavioral symptoms and cognitive skills following immune insults. Some of these children also exhibit specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SPAD), resulting in frequent infection caused by encapsulated organisms, and they often require supplemental intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (ASD/SPAD). This study assessed whether these ASD/SPAD children have distinct immunological findings in comparison with ASD/non-SPAD or non-ASD/SPAD children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Psychology 12 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,240,507
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#521
of 2,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,198
of 248,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#6
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 2,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 248,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.