↓ Skip to main content

SIDS–CDF Hypothesis Revisited: Cause vs. Contributing Factors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
SIDS–CDF Hypothesis Revisited: Cause vs. Contributing Factors
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00244
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pontus M. A. Siren

Abstract

The sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)-critical diaphragm failure (CDF) hypothesis was first published by Siren and Siren in 2011 (1). Since its publication, the hypothesis has continued to generate interest and several colleagues have contributed perspectives and insights to it (2-5). The basic premise of the hypothesis is that the diaphragm is a vital organ that must continuously generate adequate force to maintain ventilation, and that CDF is a terminal event and the cause of death in SIDS. I have argued in two follow-up articles that all SIDS factors either increase the workload of the respiratory muscles, the diaphragm being the primary muscle affected, or reduce its force generating capacity (6, 7). The SIDS-CDF hypothesis posits that SIDS has many contributing factors but only one cause, namely, the failure of the vital respiratory pump. There are several known SIDS factors, such as the prone sleeping position, non-lethal infections, deep sleep, gestational prematurity, low birth weight, cigarette smoke, male gender, and altitude, but of these, some such as the prone sleeping position more significantly both impact diaphragm function and correlate with SIDS. However, SIDS cases are multifactorial and as such can be caused by different combinations of factors. An infection combined with a prone sleeping position and elevated room temperature could lead to SIDS, whereas in other circumstances, low birth weight, cigarette smoke, prone sleeping position, and altitude could result in CDF and SIDS. The SIDS-CDF hypothesis also posits that SIDS does not have a congenital or genetic origin, and that efforts to identify significant genetic anomalies in SIDS victims are unlikely to be successful (8-11).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Engineering 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,945,994
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,310
of 11,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,191
of 418,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#21
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 418,819 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.