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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces remote apoptotic cell death and inflammation after focal brain injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neuroinflammation, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12974-016-0616-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valeria Sasso, Elisa Bisicchia, Laura Latini, Veronica Ghiglieri, Fabrizio Cacace, Valeria Carola, Marco Molinari, Maria Teresa Viscomi |
| Abstract |
After focal brain injuries occur, in addition to the effects that are attributable to the primary site of damage, the resulting functional impairments depend highly on changes that occur in regions that are remote but functionally connected to the site of injury. Such effects are associated with apoptotic and inflammatory cascades and are considered to be important predictors of outcome. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive technique that is used to treat various central nervous system (CNS) pathologies and enhance functional recovery after brain damage. This study examined the efficacy of rTMS in mitigating remote degeneration and inflammation and in improving functional recovery in a model of focal brain damage. Rats that were undergoing hemicerebellectomy (HCb) were treated with an rTMS protocol for 7 days, and neuronal death indices, glial activation, and functional recovery were assessed. rTMS significantly reduced neuronal death and glial activation in remote regions and improved functional recovery. Our finding opens up a completely new scenario for exploiting the potential of rTMS as an anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 17 | 24% |
| Psychology | 10 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,334,427
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2,316
of 2,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,048
of 352,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#55
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 352,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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.