↓ Skip to main content

In vitro biosafety profile evaluation of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells derived from the bone marrow of sarcoma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
In vitro biosafety profile evaluation of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells derived from the bone marrow of sarcoma patients
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-12-95
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enrico Lucarelli, Chiara Bellotti, Melissa Mantelli, Maria Antonietta Avanzini, Rita Maccario, Francesca Novara, Giulia Arrigo, Orsetta Zuffardi, Monia Zuntini, Martina Pandolfi, Luca Sangiorgi, Daniela Lisini, Davide Donati, Serena Duchi

Abstract

In osteosarcoma (OS) and most Ewing sarcoma (EWS) patients, the primary tumor originates in the bone. Although tumor resection surgery is commonly used to treat these diseases, it frequently leaves massive bone defects that are particularly difficult to be treated. Due to the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), OS and EWS patients could benefit from an autologous MSCs-based bone reconstruction. However, safety concerns regarding the in vitro expansion of bone marrow-derived MSCs have been raised. To investigate the possible oncogenic potential of MSCs from OS or EWS patients (MSC-SAR) after expansion, this study focused on a biosafety assessment of MSC-SAR obtained after short- and long-term cultivation compared with MSCs from healthy donors (MSC-CTRL).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
India 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 27%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Psychology 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2014.
All research outputs
#17,719,424
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,737
of 3,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,835
of 228,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#30
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 228,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 52% of its contemporaries.