↓ Skip to main content

Role of Network Science in the Study of Anesthetic State Transitions.

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesiology, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
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.
Title
Role of Network Science in the Study of Anesthetic State Transitions.
Published in
Anesthesiology, November 2018
DOI 10.1097/aln.0000000000002228
Pubmed ID
Authors

UnCheol Lee, George A. Mashour

Abstract

The heterogeneity of molecular mechanisms, target neural circuits, and neurophysiologic effects of general anesthetics makes it difficult to develop a reliable and drug-invariant index of general anesthesia. No single brain region or mechanism has been identified as the neural correlate of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness might emerge through complex interactions of spatially and temporally distributed brain functions. The goal of this review article is to introduce the basic concepts of networks and explain why the application of network science to general anesthesia could be a pathway to discover a fundamental mechanism of anesthetic-induced unconsciousness. This article reviews data suggesting that reduced network efficiency, constrained network repertoires, and changes in cortical dynamics create inhospitable conditions for information processing and transfer, which lead to unconsciousness. This review proposes that network science is not just a useful tool but a necessary theoretical framework and method to uncover common principles of anesthetic-induced unconsciousness.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Neuroscience 13 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 27 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 January 2022.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesiology
#4,887
of 6,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,065
of 363,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesiology
#72
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 363,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.