↓ Skip to main content

Pathogenic mechanism of second hand smoke induced inflammation and COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Pathogenic mechanism of second hand smoke induced inflammation and COPD
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahel L. Birru, Y. Peter Di

Abstract

Second hand smoke (SHS) introduces thousands of toxic chemicals into the lung, including carcinogens and oxidants, which cause direct airway epithelium tissue destruction. It can also illicit indirect damage through its effect on signaling pathways related to tissue cell repair and by the abnormal induction of inflammation into the lung. After repeated exposure to SHS, these symptoms can lead to the development of pulmonary inflammatory disorders, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD is a severe pulmonary disease characterized by chronic inflammation and irreversible tissue destruction. There is no causal cure, as the mechanism behind the development and progression of the disease is still unknown. Recent discoveries implicate genetic predisposition associated with inflammatory response contributed to the development of COPD, linked to irregular innate and adaptive immunity, as well as a risk factor for cancer. The use of animal models for both cigarette smoke (CS) and SHS associated in vivo experiments has been crucial in elucidating the pathogenic mechanisms and genetic components involved in inflammation-related development of COPD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 3 14%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Student > Master 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,381,374
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,051
of 13,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,626
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#64
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.