| Title |
Wearable and implantable pancreas substitutes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Artificial Organs, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10047-012-0660-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leonardo Ricotti, Tareq Assaf, Paolo Dario, Arianna Menciassi |
| Abstract |
A lifelong-implanted and completely automated artificial or bioartificial pancreas (BAP) is the holy grail for type 1 diabetes treatment, and could be a definitive solution even for other severe pathologies, such as pancreatitis and pancreas cancer. Technology has made several important steps forward in the last years, providing new hope for the realization of such devices, whose feasibility is strictly connected to advances in glucose sensor technology, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal insulin pump development, the design of closed-loop control algorithms for mechatronic pancreases, as well as cell and tissue engineering and cell encapsulation for biohybrid pancreases. Furthermore, smart integration of the mentioned components and biocompatibility issues must be addressed, bearing in mind that, for mechatronic pancreases, it is most important to consider how to recharge implanted batteries and refill implanted insulin reservoirs without requiring periodic surgical interventions. This review describes recent advancements in technologies and concepts related to artificial and bioartificial pancreases, and assesses how far we are from a lifelong-implanted and self-working pancreas substitute that can fully restore the quality of life of a diabetic (or other type of) patient. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 31 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 April 2014.
All research outputs
#3,535,438
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Artificial Organs
#15
of 245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,134
of 170,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Artificial Organs
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 170,500 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them