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 |
Good manufacturing practice-compliant isolation and culture of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-12-56 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phuc Van Pham, Ngoc Bich Vu, Vuong Minh Pham, Nhung Hai Truong, Truc Le-Buu Pham, Loan Thi-Tung Dang, Tam Thanh Nguyen, Anh Nguyen-Tu Bui, Ngoc Kim Phan |
| Abstract |
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are an attractive source of stem cells for clinical applications. These cells exhibit a multilineage differentiation potential and strong capacity for immune modulation. Thus, MSCs are widely used in cell therapy, tissue engineering, and immunotherapy. Because of important advantages, umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs (UCB-MSCs) have attracted interest for some time. However, the applications of UCB-MSCs are limited by the small number of recoverable UCB-MSCs and fetal bovine serum (FBS)-dependent expansion methods. Hence, this study aimed to establish a xenogenic and allogeneic supplement-free expansion protocol. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 20% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 April 2014.
All research outputs
#3,769,430
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#698
of 4,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,684
of 237,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#13
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 237,559 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.