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 |
Niemann-Pick type C1 patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells display disease specific hallmarks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-8-144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michaela Trilck, Rayk Hübner, Philip Seibler, Christine Klein, Arndt Rolfs, Moritz J Frech |
| Abstract |
Niemann-Pick type C1 disease (NPC1) is a rare progressive neurodegenerative disorder caused by mutations in the NPC1 gene. In this lysosomal storage disorder the intracellular transport and sequestration of several lipids like cholesterol is severely impaired, resulting in an accumulation of lipids in late endosomes and lysosomes. The neurological manifestation of the disease is caused by dysfunction and cell death in the central nervous system. Several animal models were used to analyze the impaired pathways. However, the underlying pathogenic mechanisms are still not completely understood and the genetic variability in humans cannot be reflected in these models. Therefore, a human model using patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells provides a promising approach. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 22% |
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
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 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,767,639
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#929
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,968
of 201,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#11
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 201,958 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 67% of its contemporaries.