↓ Skip to main content

Advances in medical adhesives inspired by aquatic organisms’ adhesion

Overview of attention for article published in Biomaterials Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 197)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Advances in medical adhesives inspired by aquatic organisms’ adhesion
Published in
Biomaterials Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40824-017-0101-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyu Ha Park, Keum-Yong Seong, Seung Yun Yang, Sungbaek Seo

Abstract

In biomedicine, adhesives for hard and soft tissues are crucial for various clinical purposes. However, compared with that under dry conditions, adhesion performance in the presence of water or moisture is dramatically reduced. In this review, representative types of medical adhesives and the challenging aspects of wet adhesion are introduced. The adhesion mechanisms of marine mussels, sandcastle worms, and endoparasitic worms are described, and stemming from the insights gained, designs based on the chemistry of molecules like catechol and on coacervation and mechanical interlocking platforms are introduced in the viewpoint of translating these natural adhesion mechanisms into synthetic approaches.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 23%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 31 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 10 13%
Engineering 10 13%
Chemical Engineering 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Materials Science 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 33 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,661,764
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biomaterials Research
#29
of 197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,036
of 333,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomaterials Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 333,631 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them