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 |
The influence of anisotropic nano- to micro-topography on in vitro and in vivo osteogenesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nanomedicine, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2217/nnm.14.218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ayesha Azeem, Andrew English, Pramod Kumar, Abhigyan Satyam, Manus Biggs, Eleanor Jones, Bhawana Tripathi, Nandita Basu, Jan Henkel, Cdryck Vaquette, Niall Rooney, Graham Riley, Alan O'Riordan, Graham Cross, Saso Ivanovski, Dietmar Hutmacher, Abhay Pandit, Dimitrios Zeugolis |
| Abstract |
Topographically modified substrates are increasingly used in tissue engineering to enhance biomimicry. The overarching hypothesis is that topographical cues will control cellular response at the cell-substrate interface. The influence of anisotropically ordered poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) substrates (constant groove width of ˜1860 nm; constant line width of ˜2220 nm; variable groove depth of ˜35, 306 and 2046 nm) on in vitro and in vivo osteogenesis were assessed. We demonstrate that substrates with groove depths of approximately 306 and 2046 nm promote osteoblast alignment parallel to underlined topography in vitro. However, none of the topographies assessed promoted directional osteogenesis in vivo. 2D imprinting technologies are useful tools for in vitro cell phenotype maintenance. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 18% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
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 01 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,298,896
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Nanomedicine
#885
of 1,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,014
of 271,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nanomedicine
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 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 1,455 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 271,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.