The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 |
Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Tissue Repair
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00201 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy M. DiMarino, Arnold I. Caplan, Tracey L. Bonfield |
| Abstract |
The advent of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-based therapies for clinical therapeutics has been an exciting and new innovation for the treatment of a variety of diseases associated with inflammation, tissue damage, and subsequent regeneration and repair. Application-based ability to measure MSC potency and fate of the cells post-MSC therapy are the variables that confound the use of MSCs therapeutics in human diseases. An evaluation of MSC function and applications with attention to detail in the preparation as well as quality control and quality assurance are only as good as the assays that are developed. In vivo measures of efficacy and potency require an appreciation of the overall pathophysiology of the model and standardization of outcome measures. The new concepts of how MSC's participate in the tissue regeneration and wound repair process and further, how this is impacted by estimates of efficacy and potency are important new topics. In this regard, this chapter will review some of the in vitro and in vivo assays for MSC function and activity and their application to the clinical arena. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 485 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 473 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 89 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 78 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 59 | 12% |
| Researcher | 58 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 69 | 14% |
| Unknown | 105 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 100 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 63 | 13% |
| Engineering | 33 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 20 | 4% |
| Other | 62 | 13% |
| Unknown | 125 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,452,627
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#6,175
of 31,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,736
of 289,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#71
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 289,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.