↓ Skip to main content

The use of functional human tissues in drug development

Overview of attention for article published in Cell and Tissue Banking, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
The use of functional human tissues in drug development
Published in
Cell and Tissue Banking, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10561-010-9213-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Bunton

Abstract

Fresh, functional human tissues have long been considered the closest possible model of human in vivo function and can be used to measure a wide range of pharmacological responses. Despite this, relatively little drug development is conducted using fresh human tissue because of the logistical and ethical difficulties surrounding the availability of tissue and practicalities of experimental work. Most tests of drug activity require a living test system comprising cells, tissues or whole organisms. In some instances, "living" (fresh) human tissues have the potential to reduce or replace animal tests through superior prediction of drug safety and efficacy. Before functional human tissue tests become a routine part of drug development, two factors must co-exist. Firstly, organisations such as Biopta must continue to create compelling evidence that human tissues are more predictive than alternative models; such evidence will drive demand from the pharmaceutical industry for human tissue-based tests. Secondly, the vast number of tissues and organs residual to surgery or unsuitable for transplant must be routinely consented for medical research and made available to all researchers in an equitable and timely manner. This requires a concerted effort throughout the NHS and consistent demand as well as financial support from researchers, particularly within industry. It is our view that the next 5-10 years will generate compelling evidence of the value of functional human tissue-based tests and recognition that more efficient use of residual or non-transplantable tissues and organs is an urgent priority for the development of new medicines.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Unspecified 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,143,247
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#132
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,987
of 95,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 95,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.