↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Insights into the molecular etiology of exercise-induced inflammation: opportunities for optimizing performance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Inflammation Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
Title
Insights into the molecular etiology of exercise-induced inflammation: opportunities for optimizing performance
Published in
Journal of Inflammation Research, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/jir.s114635
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioannis G Fatouros, Athanasios Z Jamurtas

Abstract

The study of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) is of paramount importance not only because it affects athletic performance but also because it is an excellent model to study the mechanisms governing muscle cachexia under various clinical conditions. Although, a large number of studies have investigated EIMD and its associated inflammatory response, several aspects of skeletal muscles responses remain unclear. In the first section of this article, the mechanisms of EIMD are reviewed in an attempt to follow the events that result in functional and structural alterations of skeletal muscle. In the second section, the inflammatory response associated with EIMD is presented with emphasis in leukocyte accumulation through mechanisms that are largely coordinated by pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines released either by injured muscle itself or other cells. The practical applications of EIMD and the subsequent inflammatory response are discussed with respect to athletic performance. Specifically, the mechanisms leading to performance deterioration and development of muscle soreness are discussed. Emphasis is given to the factors affecting individual responses to EIMD and the resulting interindividual variability to this phenomenon.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 192 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Researcher 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 59 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 50 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 70 36%
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 03 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,812,358
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Inflammation Research
#120
of 969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,795
of 333,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Inflammation Research
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 333,150 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.