↓ Skip to main content

Role of Coronary Myogenic Response in Pressure-Flow Autoregulation in Swine: A Meta-Analysis With Coronary Flow Modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Role of Coronary Myogenic Response in Pressure-Flow Autoregulation in Swine: A Meta-Analysis With Coronary Flow Modeling
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory M. Dick, Ravi Namani, Bhavesh Patel, Ghassan S. Kassab

Abstract

Myogenic responses (pressure-dependent contractions) of coronary arterioles play a role in autoregulation (relatively constant flow vs. pressure). Publications on myogenic reactivity in swine coronaries vary in caliber, analysis, and degree of responsiveness. Further, data on myogenic responses and autoregulation in swine have not been completely compiled, compared, and modeled. Thus, it has been difficult to understand these physiological phenomena. Our purpose was to: (a) analyze myogenic data with standard criteria; (b) assign results to diameter categories defined by morphometry; and (c) use our novel multiscale flow model to determine the extent to which ex vivo myogenic reactivity can explain autoregulation in vivo. When myogenic responses from the literature are an input for our model, the predicted coronary autoregulation approaches in vivo observations. More complete and appropriate data are now available to investigate the regulation of coronary blood flow in swine, a highly relevant model for human physiology and disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%
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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,639,173
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,266
of 13,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,329
of 330,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#312
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 13,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 330,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 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.