↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Placenta-derived exosomes: potential biomarkers of preeclampsia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Placenta-derived exosomes: potential biomarkers of preeclampsia
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s142732
Pubmed ID
Authors

Preenan Pillay, Kogi Moodley, Jagidesa Moodley, Irene Mackraj

Abstract

Preeclampsia remains a leading cause of maternal and fetal mortality, due to ineffective treatment and diagnostic strategies, compounded by the lack of clarity on the etiology of the disorder. Although several clinical and biological markers of preeclampsia have been evaluated, they have proven to be ineffective in providing a definitive diagnosis during the various stages of the disorder. Exosomes have emerged as ideal biomarkers of pathological states, such as cancer, and have more recently gained interest in pregnancy-related complications, due to their role in cellular communication in normal and complicated pregnancies. This occurs as a result of the specific placenta-derived exosomal molecular cargo, which may be involved in normal pregnancy-associated immunological events, such as the maintenance of maternal-fetal tolerance. This review provides perspectives on placenta-derived exosomes as possible biomarkers for the diagnosis/prognosis of preeclampsia. Using keywords, online databases were searched to identify relevant publications to review the potential use of placenta-derived exosomes as biomarkers of preeclampsia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Master 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 58 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 69 40%
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 29 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,188,597
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#997
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,094
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#20
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 331,218 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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.