↓ Skip to main content

Historical and Current Concepts of Fibrillogenesis and In vivo Amyloidogenesis: Implications of Amyloid Tissue Targeting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
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.
Title
Historical and Current Concepts of Fibrillogenesis and In vivo Amyloidogenesis: Implications of Amyloid Tissue Targeting
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Kisilevsky, Sara Raimondi, Vittorio Bellotti

Abstract

Historical and current concepts of in vitro fibrillogenesis are considered in the light of disorders in which amyloid is deposited at anatomic sites remote from the site of synthesis of the corresponding precursor protein. These clinical conditions set constraints on the interpretation of information derived from in vitro fibrillogenesis studies. They suggest that in addition to kinetic and thermodynamic factors identified in vitro, fibrillogenesis in vivo is determined by site specific factors most of which have yet to be identified.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Unspecified 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#8,342,912
of 26,365,186 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#867
of 4,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,086
of 318,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,365,186 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,813 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 318,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.