The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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.
| Title |
Candidate genes of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: current evidence and research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Application of Clinical Genetics, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tacg.s61999 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Zhou, Yaping Wang |
| Abstract |
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a group of common and lethal forms of idiopathic interstitial pulmonary disease. IPF is characterized by a progressive decline in lung function with a median survival of 2-3 years after diagnosis. Although the pathogenesis of the disease remains unknown, genetic predisposition could play a causal role in IPF. A set of genes have been identified as candidate genes of IPF in the past 20 years. However, the recent technological advances that allow for the analysis of millions of polymorphisms in different subjects have deepened the understanding of the genetic complexity of IPF susceptibility. Genome-wide association studies and whole-genome sequencing continue to reveal the genetic loci associated with IPF risk. In this review, we describe candidate genes on the basis of their functions and aim to gain a better understanding of the genetic basis of IPF. The discovered candidate genes may help to clarify pivotal aspects in the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapies of IPF. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,542,209
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from The Application of Clinical Genetics
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,891
of 408,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Application of Clinical Genetics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 408,562 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them