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 |
Potency evaluation of tissue engineered and regenerative medicine products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Biotechnology, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.05.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Guthrie, Andrew Bruce, Namrata Sangha, Elias Rivera, Joydeep Basu |
| Abstract |
Methodologies for the rigorous and quantitative evaluation of biological activity or potency are an essential aspect of the developmental pathway for all biologic product candidates. Such assays typically leverage key mechanistic pathways demonstrated to mediate observed therapeutic outcomes. Tissue engineered/regenerative medicine (TE/RM) therapeutics include cell based therapies as well as engineered tissues and neo-organs for which clarity regarding the mechanism or mechanisms of action may not be forthcoming. Here, we discuss how strategies for the development of potency assays for TE/RM product candidates may harness potential mechanisms of action or other therapeutically relevant bioactivity along with cell number and viability. As the pipeline for TE/RM product candidates expands through 2014 and beyond, the establishment of a defined framework for potency assays will facilitate successful translational outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 39 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Engineering | 11 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,415,350
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#634
of 2,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,311
of 208,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 208,862 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.