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 |
Where did bone come from?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Orthopaedica, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3109/17453674.2011.588861 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Darja Obradovic Wagner, Per Aspenberg |
| Abstract |
Bone is specific to vertebrates, and originated as mineralization around the basal membrane of the throat or skin, giving rise to tooth-like structures and protective shields in animals with a soft cartilage-like endoskeleton. A combination of fossil anatomy and genetic information from modern species has improved our understanding of the evolution of bone. Thus, even in man, there are still similarities in the molecular regulation of skin appendages and bone. This article gives a brief overview of the major milestones in skeletal evolution. Some molecular machineries involving members of core genetic networks and their interactions are described in the context of both old theories and modern genetic approaches. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 9% |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,180,372
of 24,378,020 outputs
Outputs from Acta Orthopaedica
#15
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,613
of 116,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Orthopaedica
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,378,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 116,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.