↓ Skip to main content

The pathogenesis of COPD and IPF: Distinct horns of the same devil?

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The pathogenesis of COPD and IPF: Distinct horns of the same devil?
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-13-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Chilosi, Venerino Poletti, Andrea Rossi

Abstract

New paradigms have been recently proposed in the pathogenesis of both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), evidencing surprising similarities between these deadly diseases, despite their obvious clinical, radiological and pathologic differences. There is growing evidence supporting a "double hit" pathogenic model where in both COPD and IPF the cumulative action of an accelerated senescence of pulmonary parenchyma (determined by either telomere dysfunction and/or a variety of genetic predisposing factors), and the noxious activity of cigarette smoke-induced oxidative damage are able to severely compromise the regenerative potential of two pulmonary precursor cell compartments (alveolar epithelial precursors in IPF, mesenchymal precursor cells in COPD/emphysema). The consequent divergent derangement of signalling pathways involved in lung tissue renewal (mainly Wnt and Notch), can eventually lead to the distinct abnormal tissue remodelling and functional impairment that characterise the alveolar parenchyma in these diseases (irreversible fibrosis and bronchiolar honeycombing in IPF, emphysema and airway chronic inflammation in COPD).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 180 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Other 16 9%
Student > Master 14 7%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 33 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,601
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,138
of 248,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#55
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 248,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.