↓ Skip to main content

Use of imaging biomarkers to assess perfusion and glucose metabolism in the skeletal muscle of dystrophic mice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Use of imaging biomarkers to assess perfusion and glucose metabolism in the skeletal muscle of dystrophic mice
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-12-127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nabeel Ahmad, Ian Welch, Robert Grange, Jennifer Hadway, Savita Dhanvantari, David Hill, Ting-Yim Lee, Lisa M Hoffman

Abstract

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe neuromuscular disease that affects 1 in 3500 boys. The disease is characterized by progressive muscle degeneration that results from mutations in or loss of the cytoskeletal protein, dystrophin, from the glycoprotein membrane complex, thus increasing the susceptibility of contractile muscle to injury. To date, disease progression is typically assessed using invasive techniques such as muscle biopsies, and while there are recent reports of the use of magnetic resonance, ultrasound and optical imaging technologies to address the issue of disease progression and monitoring therapeutic intervention in dystrophic mice, our study aims to validate the use of imaging biomarkers (muscle perfusion and metabolism) in a longitudinal assessment of skeletal muscle degeneration/regeneration in two murine models of muscular dystrophy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 61 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 26%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Physics and Astronomy 3 5%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 9 14%

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 22 January 2015.
All research outputs
#9,906,368
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,944
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,219
of 264,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 264,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.