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 |
Recent Progress in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Embryonic and Neonatal Mouse Brain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnana.2016.00018 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan Wu, Jiangyang Zhang |
| Abstract |
The laboratory mouse has been widely used as a model system to investigate the genetic control mechanisms of mammalian brain development. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important tool to characterize changes in brain anatomy in mutant mouse strains and injury progression in mouse models of fetal and neonatal brain injury. Progress in the last decade has enabled us to acquire MRI data with increasing anatomical details from the embryonic and neonatal mouse brain. High-resolution ex vivo MRI, especially with advanced diffusion MRI methods, can visualize complex microstructural organizations in the developing mouse brain. In vivo MRI of the embryonic mouse brain, which is critical for tracking anatomical changes longitudinally, has become available. Applications of these techniques may lead to further insights into the complex and dynamic processes of brain development. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 8 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#924
of 1,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,895
of 298,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#33
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 298,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.