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 |
Capturing phenotypic heterogeneity in MPS I: results of an international consensus procedure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-7-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Minke H de Ru, Quirine GA Teunissen, Johanna H van der Lee, Michael Beck, Olaf A Bodamer, Lorne A Clarke, Carla E Hollak, Shuan-Pei Lin, Maria-Verónica Muñoz Rojas, Gregory M Pastores, Julian A Raiman, Maurizio Scarpa, Eileen P Treacy, Anna Tylki-Szymanska, J Edmond Wraith, Jiri Zeman, Frits A Wijburg |
| Abstract |
Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is traditionally divided into three phenotypes: the severe Hurler (MPS I-H) phenotype, the intermediate Hurler-Scheie (MPS I-H/S) phenotype and the attenuated Scheie (MPS I-S) phenotype. However, there are no clear criteria for delineating the different phenotypes. Because decisions about optimal treatment (enzyme replacement therapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) need to be made quickly and depend on the presumed phenotype, an assessment of phenotypic severity should be performed soon after diagnosis. Therefore, a numerical severity scale for classifying different MPS I phenotypes at diagnosis based on clinical signs and symptoms was developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 23% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,773
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2,122
of 2,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,890
of 162,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 162,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.