↓ 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, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 2,051)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
717 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1134 Mendeley
Title
Neuroinflammation and M2 microglia: the good, the bad, and the inflamed
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-11-98
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan D Cherry, John A Olschowka, M 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 6 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 1,134 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 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 1111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 266 23%
Student > Bachelor 204 18%
Student > Master 189 17%
Researcher 146 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 79 7%
Other 133 12%
Unknown 117 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 299 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 243 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 144 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 134 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 41 4%
Other 115 10%
Unknown 158 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 11 June 2020.
All research outputs
#339,814
of 16,360,960 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#22
of 2,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,341
of 192,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,360,960 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 192,840 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.