↓ Skip to main content

Mesenchymal stem cell cultivation in electrospun scaffolds: mechanistic modeling for tissue engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Physics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Mesenchymal stem cell cultivation in electrospun scaffolds: mechanistic modeling for tissue engineering
Published in
Journal of Biological Physics, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10867-018-9482-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ágata Paim, Isabel C. Tessaro, Nilo S. M. Cardozo, Patricia Pranke

Abstract

Tissue engineering is a multidisciplinary field of research in which the cells, biomaterials, and processes can be optimized to develop a tissue substitute. Three-dimensional (3D) architectural features from electrospun scaffolds, such as porosity, tortuosity, fiber diameter, pore size, and interconnectivity have a great impact on cell behavior. Regarding tissue development in vitro, culture conditions such as pH, osmolality, temperature, nutrient, and metabolite concentrations dictate cell viability inside the constructs. The effect of different electrospun scaffold properties, bioreactor designs, mesenchymal stem cell culture parameters, and seeding techniques on cell behavior can be studied individually or combined with phenomenological modeling techniques. This work reviews the main culture and scaffold factors that affect tissue development in vitro regarding the culture of cells inside 3D matrices. The mathematical modeling of the relationship between these factors and cell behavior inside 3D constructs has also been critically reviewed, focusing on mesenchymal stem cell culture in electrospun scaffolds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 18 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Materials Science 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 21 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 December 2023.
All research outputs
#7,294,326
of 25,263,619 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Physics
#51
of 309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,994
of 338,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Physics
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,263,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 309 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 338,274 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.