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 |
Characterization of a clinical olfactory test with an artificial nose
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneng.2012.00001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J. Yáñez, Adolfo Toledano, Eduardo Serrano, Ana M. Martín de Rosales, Francisco B. Rodríguez, Pablo Varona |
| Abstract |
Clinical olfactory tests are used to address hyposmia/anosmia levels in patients with different types of olfactory impairments. Typically, a given test is employed clinically and then replaced by a new one after a certain period of use which can range from days to several months. There is a need to assess control quality of these tests and also for a procedure to quantify their degradation over time. In this paper we propose a protocol to employ low-cost artificial noses for the quantitative characterization of olfactory tests used in clinical studies. In particular, we discuss a preliminary study on the Connecticut Chemosensorial Clinical Research Center Test kit which shows that some odorants, as sensed by an artificial nose, seem to degrade while others are potentiated as the test ages. We also discuss the need to establish a map of correspondence between human and machine olfaction when artificial noses are used to characterize or compare human smell performance in research and clinical studies. |
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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 4 | 22% |
| Engineering | 3 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
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 27 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,655,675
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#56
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,275
of 244,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 244,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.