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 |
A new web-based method for automated analysis of muscle histology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cordula Pertl, Markus Eblenkamp, Anja Pertl, Stefan Pfeifer, Erich Wintermantel, Hanns Lochmüller, Maggie C Walter, Sabine Krause, Christian Thirion |
| Abstract |
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is an inherited degenerative neuromuscular disease characterised by rapidly progressive muscle weakness. Currently, curative treatment is not available. Approaches for new treatments that improve muscle strength and quality of life depend on preclinical testing in animal models. The mdx mouse model is the most frequently used animal model for preclinical studies in muscular dystrophy research. Standardised pathology-relevant parameters of dystrophic muscle in mdx mice for histological analysis have been developed in international, collaborative efforts, but automation has not been accessible to most research groups. A standardised and mainly automated quantitative assessment of histopathological parameters in the mdx mouse model is desirable to allow an objective comparison between laboratories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 2 | 29% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Norway | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 14% |
| Engineering | 6 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,175,297
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,163
of 4,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,867
of 284,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#20
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 284,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.