The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Myocardial Regeneration for Humans ― Modifying Biology and Manipulating Evolution ―
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Circulation Journal, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1253/circj.cj-16-1228 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathleen M. Broughton, Mark A. Sussman |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide and developing novel therapies to treat and cure the disease remains a high priority in the healthcare research community. Adult stem cells were successful in entering numerous clinical trials over the past 15 years in attempts to regenerate the heart. First-generation adult stem cell therapies for myocardial regeneration were highly promising in small animal models but realized benefits in humans were far more modest. Consequently, second-generation therapeutic approaches in early implementation phases have focused on enhancing cellular properties with higher survival and regenerative potential. Genetic programming dictates cellular fate, so understanding genetic composition and responses at the gene level to influence the outcome of the cell is essential for successful outcomes in regenerative medicine. Genetic editing is at the forefront of scientific innovation and as basic scientific research continues to expand upon understanding eukaryotic regenerative themes, a clearer vision of the possible future therapeutic approaches can be realized. Ultimately, enhancing biology and manipulating evolutional selection of cellular properties will be critical to achieving clinically relevant and biologically meaningful cardiac regeneration. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Circulation Journal
#1,639
of 2,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,613
of 422,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation Journal
#19
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 422,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.