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 |
Cardiotoxicity evaluation using human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-017-0473-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qi Zhao, Xijie Wang, Shuyan Wang, Zheng Song, Jiaxian Wang, Jing Ma |
| Abstract |
Cardiotoxicity remains an important concern in drug discovery. Human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) have become an attractive platform to evaluate cardiotoxicity. However, the consistency between human embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hESC-CMs) and human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) in prediction of cardiotoxicity has yet to be elucidated. Here we screened the toxicities of four representative drugs (E-4031, isoprenaline, quinidine, and haloperidol) using both hESC-CMs and hiPSC-CMs, combined with an impedance-based bioanalytical method. It showed that both hESC-CMs and hiPSC-CMs can recapitulate cardiotoxicity and identify the effects of well-characterized compounds. The combined platform of hPSC-CMs and an impedance-based bioanalytical method could improve preclinical cardiotoxicity screening, holding great potential for increasing drug development accuracy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 13% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,091,872
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#139
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,285
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#4
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 307,900 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.