↓ Skip to main content

Protective Mechanism of Hydrogen Sulfide against Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Protective Mechanism of Hydrogen Sulfide against Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuxu Du, Yaqian Huang, Hongfang Jin, Tianyou Wang

Abstract

Over the past few decades, the number of long term survivors of childhood cancers has been increased exponentially. However, among these survivors, treatment-related toxicity, especially cardiotoxicity, is becoming the essential cause of morbidity and mortality. Thus, preventing the treatment-related adverse effects is important to increase the event free survival during the treatment of cancer in children and adolescents. Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that hydrogen sulfide (H2S) exerts a protective role on cardiomyocytes through a variety of mechanisms. Here, we mainly reviewed the cardioprotective role of H2S in the chemotherapy, and emphatically discussed the possible mechanisms.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Chemistry 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 6 26%
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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,965,143
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,296
of 16,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,664
of 440,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#104
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 440,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.