↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Pathophysiology in Humans and Rodent Models of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
A Comparison of Pathophysiology in Humans and Rodent Models of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2018.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenna L. Leclerc, Joshua M. Garcia, Matthew A. Diller, Anne-Marie Carpenter, Pradip K. Kamat, Brian L. Hoh, Sylvain Doré

Abstract

Non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) affects an estimated 30,000 people each year in the United States, with an overall mortality of ~30%. Most cases of SAH result from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm, require long hospital stays, and result in significant disability and high fatality. Early brain injury (EBI) and delayed cerebral vasospasm (CV) have been implicated as leading causes of morbidity and mortality in these patients, necessitating intense focus on developing preclinical animal models that replicate clinical SAH complete with delayed CV. Despite the variety of animal models currently available, translation of findings from rodent models to clinical trials has proven especially difficult. While the explanation for this lack of translation is unclear, possibilities include the lack of standardized practices and poor replication of human pathophysiology, such as delayed cerebral vasospasm and ischemia, in rodent models of SAH. In this review, we summarize the different approaches to simulating SAH in rodents, in particular elucidating the key pathophysiology of the various methods and models. Ultimately, we suggest the development of standardized model of rodent SAH that better replicates human pathophysiology for moving forward with translational research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 25 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 33%
Neuroscience 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#1,940
of 3,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,088
of 333,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#86
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 333,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.