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 |
Differential Modulation of Nociceptive versus Non-Nociceptive Synapses by Endocannabinoids
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Pain, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1744-8069-9-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra Higgins, Sharleen Yuan, Yanqing Wang, Brian D Burrell |
| Abstract |
Although a number of clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated analgesic effects of cannabinoid treatments, there are also instances when cannabinoids have had no effect or even exacerbated pain. The observed pro-nociceptive effects appear to be due to cannabinoid-induced disinhibition of afferent synaptic input to nociceptive circuits. To better understand how cannabinoid-mediated plasticity can have both pro- and anti-nociceptive effects, we examined the possibility that cannabinoids differentially modulate nociceptive vs. non-nociceptive synapses onto a shared postsynaptic target. These experiments were carried out in the central nervous system (CNS) of the medicinal leech, in which it is possible to intracellularly record from presynaptic nociceptive (N-cell) or pressure-sensitive (P-cell) neurons and their shared postsynaptic targets. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 June 2013.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#190
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,366
of 289,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 289,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.