↓ Skip to main content

Potential mechanisms underlying the role of chronic inflammation in age-related muscle wasting

Overview of attention for article published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Potential mechanisms underlying the role of chronic inflammation in age-related muscle wasting
Published in
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, July 2013
DOI 10.3275/8464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward Jo, Sang-Rok Lee, Bong-Sup Park, Jeong-Su Kim

Abstract

Sarcopenia, an age-related condition characterized by progressive skeletal muscle degeneration, might exist as one of the primary clinical conditions underlying severe functional impairment as well as increased risk of co-morbidities in the elderly. Although the etiology of sarcopenia remains multifaceted, age-related chronic inflammation has been strongly implicated in muscle wasting and related sequelae during advanced age. Recent evidence suggests that aberrant, unresolved alterations in regular inflammatory processes during advanced age might ultimately operate as the link that drives skeletal muscle to become more degenerative and dysfunctional in nature. Such negative atrophic muscular outcomes might result from inflammation-induced disruption of central mechanisms regulating skeletal muscle morphology and remodeling. In addition, recent findings demonstrate an adverse confluence between sarcopenia and excessive adiposity (i.e. sarcopenic obesity), as the co-existence of such adverse alterations in body composition may exacerbate systemic inflammation and muscle wasting in the elderly. The following evidence-based review serves to examine sarcopenia from a mechanistic perspective with emphasis on chronic inflammation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2022.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#1,309
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,726
of 210,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#184
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 210,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.