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 |
Mesenchymal stem cells in cardiac regeneration: a detailed progress report of the last 6 years (2010–2015)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-016-0341-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aastha Singh, Abhishek Singh, Dwaipayan Sen |
| Abstract |
Mesenchymal stem cells have been used for cardiovascular regenerative therapy for decades. These cells have been established as one of the potential therapeutic agents, following several tests in animal models and clinical trials. In the process, various sources of mesenchymal stem cells have been identified which help in cardiac regeneration by either revitalizing the cardiac stem cells or revascularizing the arteries and veins of the heart. Although mesenchymal cell therapy has achieved considerable admiration, some challenges still remain that need to be overcome in order to establish it as a successful technique. This in-depth review is an attempt to summarize the major sources of mesenchymal stem cells involved in myocardial regeneration, the significant mechanisms involved in the process with a focus on studies (human and animal) conducted in the last 6 years and the challenges that remain to be addressed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 302 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 12% |
| Researcher | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 10% |
| Unknown | 78 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 64 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 12% |
| Engineering | 15 | 5% |
| Materials Science | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 10% |
| Unknown | 88 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,235,506
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#149
of 2,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,954
of 346,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 346,697 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.