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 |
Sepsis in PD-1 light
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1370-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guillaume Monneret, Morgane Gossez, Fabienne Venet |
| Abstract |
Increasing evidence suggests that after the first pro-inflammatory hours, sepsis is characterized by the occurrence of severe immunosuppression. Several mechanisms have been reported to participate in sepsis-induced immune alterations affecting both innate and adaptive immunity. Of these, the concept of 'cell exhaustion' has gained a lot of interest because some parallels can be drawn with the cancer field in which immunostimulation approaches through blocking immune checkpoints currently obtain remarkable success. Herein, perspectives regarding co-inhibitory receptors' contribution to lymphocyte exhaustion in sepsis will be discussed in the context of a recently published study investigating the potential of PD-1 molecule expression (i.e. PD-1 on lymphocytes, PD-L1 on monocytes) to predict mortality in septic shock patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 17% |
| United States | 3 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 35% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 18% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,535,292
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,196
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,419
of 370,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#71
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 370,454 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.