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 |
Current Therapeutic Strategies for Adipose Tissue Defects/Repair Using Engineered Biomaterials and Biomolecule Formulations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00507 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher M. Mahoney, Cayla Imbarlina, Cecelia C. Yates, Kacey G. Marra |
| Abstract |
Tissue engineered scaffolds for adipose restoration/repair has significantly evolved in recent years. Patients requiring soft tissue reconstruction, caused by defects or pathology, require biomaterials that will restore void volume with new functional tissue. The gold standard of autologous fat grafting (AFG) is not a reliable option. This review focuses on the latest therapeutic strategies for the treatment of adipose tissue defects using biomolecule formulations and delivery, and specifically engineered biomaterials. Additionally, the clinical need for reliable off-the-shelf therapies, animal models, and challenges facing current technologies are discussed. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 9 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,464,682
of 23,075,872 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,291
of 16,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,613
of 328,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#91
of 409 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,075,872 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 16,422 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 328,314 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 409 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.