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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A. Satyam et al.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/term.1522 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Satyam, G. S. Subramanian, M. Raghunath, A. Pandit, D. I. Zeugolis |
| Abstract |
Polysaccharides are frequently incorporated into scaffolds for tissue engineering applications to improve mechanical and biological properties. We evaluated the influence of a Ficoll® scaffold on collagen films, a scaffold that is extensively used for soft and hard tissue repair. To avoid cytotoxicity issues associated with chemical reagents, the influence of genipin, a naturally occurring crosslinking agent, was assessed. Ultra-structural level collagen films formed with and without Ficoll showed a fine fibrillar structure whereas genipin crosslinked films showed a coarse fibrillar and partially nodular structure. In contrast, glutaraldehyde crosslinked films lost their fibrillar pattern. Crosslinking significantly increased denaturation temperature (p < 0.001), stress (p < 0.0001) and force (p < 0.0001) at break. Collagen/Ficoll and collagen/Ficoll/genipin films showed the highest WI38 fibroblast attachment than any other scaffold (p < 0.003) and significantly greater WI38 fibroblast metabolic activity than other scaffolds (p < 0.001). By day 6. collagen/Ficoll/genipin films also induced higher and more aligned fibronectin matrix deposition than other scaffolds. Overall, this study indicates the suitability of collagen/Ficoll/genipin for tissue engineering applications. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 2 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 19% |
| Engineering | 6 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
#249
of 1,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,031
of 175,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 175,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 68% of its contemporaries.