↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Genetic factors in pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Genetic factors in pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s129327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maciej Tarnowski, Sylwia Słuczanowska-Głąbowska, Andrzej Pawlik, Małgorzata Mazurek-Mochol, Elżbieta Dembowska

Abstract

Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is one of the major metabolic complications after transplantation of solid organs including the kidney. This type of diabetes mellitus affects allograft survival, cardiovascular complications and overall patient survival. The modifiable risk factors that contribute to PTDM include obesity, some viral infections (eg, hepatitis C virus, cytomegalovirus) and especially immunosuppressive drugs including corticosteroids, tacrolimus, cyclosporine and sirolimus. Currently, predisposing genetic factors have been considered important in PTDM development. The commonly evaluated genetic determinants include genes encoding transcription factors, cytokines, chemokines, adipokines, ionic channels, glucose transporters, cytochrome P450 enzymes and other enzymes metabolizing drugs, drug transporters. Unfortunately, the results of studies are inconclusive and differ between populations. There is a need for large genome-wide association study to identify the genetic risk factors associated with PTDM development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Psychology 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%

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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,528,743
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#540
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,146
of 258,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 258,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.