↓ Skip to main content

Intraarterial transplantation of human umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells is more efficacious and safer compared with umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells in a rodent stroke model

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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.
Title
Intraarterial transplantation of human umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells is more efficacious and safer compared with umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells in a rodent stroke model
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/scrt434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neha Karlupia, Nathan C Manley, Kameshwar Prasad, Richard Schäfer, Gary K Steinberg

Abstract

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, claims six lives every 60 seconds, and is a leading cause of adult disability across the globe. Tissue plasminogen activator, the only United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug currently available, has a narrow therapeutic time window of less than 5 hours. In the past decade, cells derived from the human umbilical cord (HUC) have emerged as a potential therapeutic alternative for stroke; however, the most effective HUC-derived cell population remains unknown.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Sri Lanka 1 2%
Unknown 52 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,569,483
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#191
of 2,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,198
of 226,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,414 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 92% 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 226,111 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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.