The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Timeline
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
臍帯血を利用しての造血幹細胞移植
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nihon Naika Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine, June 2008
|
DOI | 10.2169/naika.86.1978 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
加藤 俊一 |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Professor | 1 | 33% |
Researcher | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 33% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#8,731,423
of 25,850,671 outputs
Outputs from Nihon Naika Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine
#114
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,523
of 97,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nihon Naika Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,850,671 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 97,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.