The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 |
Mechanisms of sensorineural cell damage, death and survival in the cochlea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00058 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ann C. Y. Wong, Allen F. Ryan |
| Abstract |
The majority of acquired hearing loss, including presbycusis, is caused by irreversible damage to the sensorineural tissues of the cochlea. This article reviews the intracellular mechanisms that contribute to sensorineural damage in the cochlea, as well as the survival signaling pathways that can provide endogenous protection and tissue rescue. These data have primarily been generated in hearing loss not directly related to age. However, there is evidence that similar mechanisms operate in presbycusis. Moreover, accumulation of damage from other causes can contribute to age-related hearing loss (ARHL). Potential therapeutic interventions to balance opposing but interconnected cell damage and survival pathways, such as antioxidants, anti-apoptotics, and pro-inflammatory cytokine inhibitors, are also discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 243 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 11% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 41 | 17% |
| Unknown | 52 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 30 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 11% |
| Engineering | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 13% |
| Unknown | 60 | 24% |
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 07 March 2022.
All research outputs
#5,560,149
of 23,292,144 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,325
of 4,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,114
of 266,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#38
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,292,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 266,463 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.