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 |
Use of a glyphosate-based herbicide-induced nephrotoxicity model to investigate a panel of kidney injury biomarkers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Toxicology Letters, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.12.009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Klintean Wunnapuk, Glenda Gobe, Zoltan Endre, Philip Peake, Jeffrey E. Grice, Michael S. Roberts, Nicholas A. Buckley, Xin Liu |
| Abstract |
Accidental or intentional ingestion of glyphosate surfactant-based herbicides, like Roundup(®), leads to nephrotoxicity as well as death. In this study, a panel of kidney injury biomarkers was evaluated in terms of suitability to detect acute kidney injury and dysfunction. The Roundup(®) intoxication model involved oral administration of glyphosate to rats at dose levels of 250, 500, 1200 and 2500 mg/kg. Urinary and plasma biomarker patterns were investigated at 8, 24 and 48 h after dosing. Biomarkers were quantified by absolute concentration; by normalising to urine creatinine; and by calculating the excretion rate. The diagnostic performances of each method in predicting of acute kidney injury were compared. By Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis of the selected biomarkers, only urinary kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) best predicted histological changes at 8h (best cut-off point>0.00029 μg/ml). Plasma creatinine performed better than other biomarkers at 24 h (best cut-off point>0.21 mg/dl). Urinary KIM-1 was the best early biomarker of kidney injury in this glyphosate-induced nephrotoxicity model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| North Macedonia | 1 | 17% |
| Chile | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 24% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,697,817
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Toxicology Letters
#430
of 3,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,699
of 320,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxicology Letters
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,691 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 320,503 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.