| Title |
Biological ageing and clinical consequences of modern technology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biogerontology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10522-017-9680-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marios Kyriazis |
| Abstract |
The pace of technology is steadily increasing, and this has a widespread effect on all areas of health and society. When we interact with this technological environment we are exposed to a wide variety of new stimuli and challenges, which may modulate the stress response and thus change the way we respond and adapt. In this Opinion paper I will examine certain aspects of the human-computer interaction with regards to health and ageing. There are practical, everyday effects which also include social and cultural elements. I will discuss how human evolution may be affected by this new environmental change (the hormetic immersion in a virtual/technological environment). Finally, I will also explore certain biological aspects which have direct relevance to the ageing human. By embracing new technologies and engaging with a techno-social ecosystem (which is no longer formed by several interacting species, but by just two main elements: humans and machines), we may be subjected to beneficial hormetic effects, which upregulate the stress response and modulate adaptation. This is likely to improve overall health as we age and, as I speculate here, may also result in the reduction of age-related dysfunction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,920,678
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Biogerontology
#404
of 657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,269
of 420,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biogerontology
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 420,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.