↓ Skip to main content

Neuroinflammation and M2 microglia: the good, the bad, and the inflamed

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
497 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
854 Mendeley
Title
Neuroinflammation and M2 microglia: the good, the bad, and the inflamed
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-11-98
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cherry JD, Olschowka JA, O Banion MK, Jonathan D Cherry, John A Olschowka, M Kerry O’Banion

Abstract

The concept of multiple macrophage activation states is not new. However, extending this idea to resident tissue macrophages, like microglia, has gained increased interest in recent years. Unfortunately, the research on peripheral macrophage polarization does not necessarily translate accurately to their central nervous system (CNS) counterparts. Even though pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines can polarize microglia to distinct activation states, the specific functions of these states is still an area of intense debate. This review examines the multiple possible activation states microglia can be polarized to. This is followed by a detailed description of microglial polarization and the functional relevance of this process in both acute and chronic CNS disease models described in the literature. Particular attention is given to utilizing M2 microglial polarization as a potential therapeutic option in treating diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 854 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 830 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 211 25%
Student > Master 154 18%
Student > Bachelor 147 17%
Researcher 124 15%
Unspecified 62 7%
Other 156 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 234 27%
Neuroscience 213 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 113 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 97 11%
Unspecified 93 11%
Other 104 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#797,010
of 13,073,426 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#59
of 1,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,844
of 188,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,073,426 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 188,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.