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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The King is Dead, Long Live the King: Entering A New Era of Stem Cell Research and Clinical Development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-9-218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Ichim, Neil H Riordan, David F Stroncek |
| Abstract |
In mid November the biopharma industry was shocked by the announcement from Geron that they were ending work on embryonic stem cell research and therapy. For more than 10 years the public image of all stem cell research has been equated with embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, a fundamentally important medical and financial fact was being ignored: embryonic stem cell therapy is extremely immature. In parallel to efforts in embryonic stem cell research and development, scientists and physicians in the field of adult stem cells realized that the natural role of adult stem cells in the body is to promote healing and to act like endogenous "repair cells" and, as a result, numerous companies have entered the field of adult stem cell therapy with the goal of expanding numbers of adult stem cells for administration to patients with various conditions. In contrast to embryonic stem cells, which are extremely expensive and potentially dangerous, adult cell cells are inexpensive and have an excellent safety record when used in humans. Many studies are now showing that adult stem cells are practical, patient-applicable, therapeutics that are very close to being available for incorporation into the practice of medicine. These events signal the entrance of the field of stem cells into a new era: an era where hype and misinformation no longer triumph over economic and medical realities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 33% |
| Panama | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 92% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
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 11 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,466,794
of 25,152,132 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#774
of 4,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,101
of 255,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#11
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,152,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 255,280 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.