↓ Skip to main content

An improved formula for standard hypoxia tolerance time (STT) to evaluate hypoxic tolerance in mice

Overview of attention for article published in Military Medical Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
An improved formula for standard hypoxia tolerance time (STT) to evaluate hypoxic tolerance in mice
Published in
Military Medical Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40779-018-0180-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gang Xu, Yu-Qi Gao, Yi-Xing Gao, Gang Wu, Jian-Yang Zhang, Wen-Xiang Gao

Abstract

Hypoxia is a primary cause of mountain sickness and a common pathological condition in patients with heart failure, shock, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus far, little advancement in countering hypoxic damage has been achieved, and one of the main reasons is the absence of an ideal algorithm or calculation method to normalize hypoxia tolerance scores when evaluating an animal model. In this study, we improved a traditional calculation formula for assessment of hypoxia tolerance. We used a sealed bottle model in which the oxygen is gradually consumed by a mouse inside. To evaluate the hypoxia tolerance of mice, the survival time (ST) of the mouse is recorded and was used to calculate standard hypoxia tolerance time (STT) and adjusted standard hypoxia tolerance time (ASTT). Mice administered with methazolamide and saline were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Since mice were grouped according to either body weight (BW) or bottle volume, we found a strongly negative correlation between STT and BW instead of between STT and bottle volume, suggesting that different BWs could cause false positive or negative errors in the STT results. Furthermore, both false positive and negative errors could be rectified when ASTT was used as the evaluation index. Screening for anti-hypoxic medicines by using mice as the experimental subjects would provide more credible results with the improved ASTT method than with the STT method. ASTT could be a better index than STT for the evaluation of hypoxia tolerance abilities as it could eliminate the impact of animal BW.

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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 22%
Lecturer 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 22%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#19,954,338
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Military Medical Research
#328
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,610
of 353,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Military Medical Research
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 353,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 50% of its contemporaries.