↓ Skip to main content

Inhibitory effect of Clitoria ternatea flower petal extract on fructose-induced protein glycation and oxidation-dependent damages to albumin in vitro

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 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
Inhibitory effect of Clitoria ternatea flower petal extract on fructose-induced protein glycation and oxidation-dependent damages to albumin in vitro
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0546-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Poramin Chayaratanasin, Manuel Alejandro Barbieri, Nipattra Suanpairintr, Sirichai Adisakwattana

Abstract

The accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in body tissue has been implicated in the progression of age-related diseases. Inhibition of AGE formation is the imperative approach for alleviating diabetic complications. Clitoria ternatea extract (CTE) has been demonstrated to possess anti-diabetic activity. However, there is no scientific evidence supporting its anti-glycation activity. The objective of this study was to determine the inhibitory effect of CTE on fructose-induced formation of AGEs and protein oxidation. Antioxidant activity of CTE was also assessed by various methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Student > Master 13 6%
Lecturer 7 3%
Researcher 6 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 104 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Chemical Engineering 7 3%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 107 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,881,474
of 25,470,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#319
of 3,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,980
of 269,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#9
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,470,300 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 269,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.