↓ Skip to main content

Metabolic Disorders in Chronic Lung Diseases

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Metabolic Disorders in Chronic Lung Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ourania Papaioannou, Theodoros Karampitsakos, Ilianna Barbayianni, Serafeim Chrysikos, Nikos Xylourgidis, Vasilis Tzilas, Demosthenes Bouros, Vasilis Aidinis, Argyrios Tzouvelekis

Abstract

Chronic lung diseases represent complex diseases with gradually increasing incidence, characterized by significant medical and financial burden for both patients and relatives. Their increasing incidence and complexity render a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and personalized approach critically important. This approach includes the assessment of comorbid conditions including metabolic dysfunctions. Several lines of evidence show that metabolic comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, and thyroid dysfunction have a significant impact on symptoms, quality of life, management, economic burden, and disease mortality. Most recently, novel pathogenetic pathways and potential therapeutic targets have been identified through large-scale studies of metabolites, called metabolomics. This review article aims to summarize the current state of knowledge on the prevalence of metabolic comorbidities in chronic lung diseases, highlight their impact on disease clinical course, delineate mechanistic links, and report future perspectives on the role of metabolites as disease modifiers and therapeutic targets.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 23 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,488,947
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,056
of 5,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,339
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#56
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 441,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.