↓ Skip to main content

Clinical evaluation of a matrix metalloproteinase-12 cleaved fragment of titin as a cardiovascular serological biomarker

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Clinical evaluation of a matrix metalloproteinase-12 cleaved fragment of titin as a cardiovascular serological biomarker
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-10-140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Efstathios Vassiliadis, Lars M Rasmussen, Inger Byrjalsen, Dorthe Vang Larsen, Rajiv Chaturvedi, Susanne Hosbond, Lotte Saabye, Axel CP Diederichsen, Federica Genovese, Kevin L Duffin, Qinlong Zheng, Xiaoliang Chen, Diana J Leeming, Claus Christiansen, Morten A Karsdal

Abstract

Titin is a muscle-specific protein found in cardiac and skeletal muscles which is responsible for restoring passive tension. Levels and functioning of titin have been shown to be affected by cardiac damage. Due to the inherent difficulty of measuring titin levels in vivo in a clinical setting, we aimed to develop an assay that could reliably measure fragments of degraded titin in serum and potentially be used in the assessment of cardiac muscle damage.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,485,561
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#712
of 3,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,968
of 164,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#7
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 164,302 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 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.