C. Michael Gibson MD engagement report
@CMichaelGibson - 429K followers on X
Measured over 91 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 25, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 28 interactions against 429K followers, an engagement rate of 0.006%. Measured over 91 original posts, its engagement rate beats 28% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 3.2K times each, and 0.871% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.749% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.9 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 73% of days. Most posts go out around 09:00 UTC, and Saturday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 91 posts sampled, 95% carry an image or video and 84% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 13K interactions, about 467x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #baiminstitute, #cardiology, #clinicalresearch.
Measured over 91 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 25, 2026. Recurring tags: #baiminstitute, #cardiology, #clinicalresearch.
Compared with accounts its own size
C. Michael Gibson MD's engagement rate beats 28% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 44% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.006%, C. Michael Gibson MD sits above the 10th percentile of the 205,261 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.024%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.678% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 09:00 UTC, and Saturday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 95% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 84% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 95% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 84% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 313 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 30, 2026467x their median
أطباء الكارديو كل سنة ينزلون classification جديد ال Heart failure وجايدلاينز جديدة دكاترة العظام: https://t.co/kn3zhQtOir
- Mar 29, 2020160x their median
“The Last Shift” Oil on clay covered wood board by C. Michael Gibson 2020. Welcome home to all of our courageous #CoronaHeroes who made the ultimate sacrifice 🙏💙 #cmgsees #COVID19 https://t.co/lg9GBLq4Ps
- Sep 23, 202614x their median
academia 100% deserves this https://t.co/3hkfSiqG2M
- Aug 28, 20268.0x their median
SINGLE-AF trial: In patients with atrial fibrillation and intermediate stroke risk, DOAC therapy lowered the risk of net adverse clinical events (stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, or CV death) compared to no anticoagulation at 24 months. View slides here: https://t.co/b36rhC1emf
- Sep 5, 20266.0x their median
Some take aways from what we know about HORIZONS phase 3 trial of Lp(a) lowering 1. We know very little. We only know the primary endpoint in the entire population. 2. We do not know if some subgroups may have benefited more like those with a higher baseline Lp(a). 3. Do those who were not on dual or single anti platelet therapy benefit? 4. Did efficacy vary by baseline and on treatment LDL? 5. Did efficacy vary by achieved Lp(a)? 6. We need more sophisticated analyses of the particle composition and oxidizing potential of the patient’s Lp(a) particle to assess for heterogeneity in response. 7. Were the results different in MI patients vs stroke vs PAD patients? These vascular beds behave differently in response to therapeutic interventions. 8. Were the results different in patients with single vessel disease vs multivessel disease where there were more targets for modification. 9. This was a time to first event analysis and not a time to any event analysis (a multiple event analysis). A multiple event analysis captures disease burden and may be more highly powered. 10. For those who were on dual antiplatelet therapies, once these were discontinued, was there an event reduction which would suggest optimal antiplatelet therapy may have reduced residual risk so much it could not be modified? 11. Much has been made of observational data suggesting aspirin may modify risk in patients with an elevated Lp(a). Was there an interaction with aspirin therapy ? 12. Mendelian randomization / genetics captures lifetime exposure and not several years of exposure as in this trial. Were the KM curves diverging late suggesting prolonged therapy might have been needed? 13. Were the assumptions regarding the magnitude of the potential efficacy signal too optimistic and was the trial underpowered? 14. In a trial this long patients may go missing. How good was the follow up? Was there informative censoring? 15. The results of primary prevention trials where LDL lowering and antiplatelet therapy may not have been as aggressive may still show benefit. 16. This ONE trial does not negate the potential causal role of Lp(a). The LDL and antiplatelet therapy may have reduced residual risk so much that there was very little risk to be modified. A trial Lp(a) lowering only would share more light on this question (a trial will never be done). What would happen if all patients were on Lp(a) lowering therapy. Would LDL lowering further improve outcomes? We don’t know for sure. 17. Was there an interaction with CRP, gender age risk score? 18. Obviously there are more questions than answers at this point. I raise these questions as exploratory hypotheses, to further our understanding of the biology, not to salvage a neutral trial. We all anxiously await the full recitation of results and answers to these questions as well as others. Thank you to the patients who participated.
- Aug 29, 20263.3x their median
EPIDAURUS trial: In patients with AF and ACS, dual antithrombotic therapy with DOAC and intensified P2Y12-inhibition with prasugrel or ticagrelor for 1 month was associated with a higher bleeding risk without reducing ischemic events compared to triple antithrombotic therapy. Download slides here: https://t.co/i24tXyvKfP
- Aug 27, 20263.3x their median
We’re heading to ESC! 🇪🇺❤️ Please join Baim faculty throughout ESC this year as they share their expertise and present new research. We’re proud to have so many members of the Baim community participating in this year’s meeting. Follow along as we highlight their presentations and contributions throughout ESC! See you soon in Munich. @scottdsolomon @gabrielsteg @CBallantyneMD @lamcardio @ProfKausikRay @DrMarthaGulati @PamTaubMD #BaimInstitute #Cardiology #ClinicalResearch
- Aug 29, 20262.9x their median
ENRICH-AF trial: In AF patients with prior ICH, edoxaban did not lower stroke or systemic embolism but increased major bleeding compared to non-anticoagulant therapy. Download slides here: https://t.co/30E9SFdhLj https://t.co/smHqPAwQ8Q
- Aug 29, 20262.8x their median
AIR-STEMI trial: Among STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, physiology-guided complete revascularization reduced the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, CVA, or ischemia-driven revascularization compared to angiography-guided strategy. Download slides here: https://t.co/IMpCTxtOZy
- Sep 10, 20262.7x their median
Remote Exercise SWEDEHEART trial: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation had similar participation rate and improvement in exercise capacity compared to center-based program at 4 months in post-MI patients, suggesting that remote delivery serves as a safe patient-centered alternative with similar functional efficacy. Download slides here: https://t.co/YfUs1DgUR2
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Recurring topics
The most frequent hashtags in the sampled posts. They describe what this account writes about; they are not a performance signal, and the catalog-wide breakdown on the hub shows how little hashtag count moves.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 28 interactions against 429K followers, an engagement rate of 0.006%. Measured over 91 original posts, its engagement rate beats 28% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 3.2K times each, and 0.871% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.749% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.9 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 73% of days. Most posts go out around 09:00 UTC, and Saturday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 91 posts sampled, 95% carry an image or video and 84% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 13K interactions, about 467x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #baiminstitute, #cardiology, #clinicalresearch.
- What is C. Michael Gibson MD's engagement rate on X?
- C. Michael Gibson MD (@CMichaelGibson) has an engagement rate of 0.006%, based on the median interactions across 91 original posts from the last 30 days against 429,099 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.006%, C. Michael Gibson MD sits above the 10th percentile of the 205,261 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @CMichaelGibson have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 28% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @CMichaelGibson post?
- Most posts go out around 09:00 UTC, and Saturday is its busiest day, at roughly 3.93 posts per day across the measured window.