↓ Skip to main content

Prolonged Blood-Brain Barrier Injury Occurs After Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Is Not Acutely Associated with Additional Bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Stroke Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Prolonged Blood-Brain Barrier Injury Occurs After Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Is Not Acutely Associated with Additional Bleeding
Published in
Translational Stroke Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12975-018-0636-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colby A. Nadeau, Kristen Dietrich, Cassandra M. Wilkinson, Andrew M. Crawford, Graham N. George, Helen K. Nichol, Frederick Colbourne

Abstract

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) causes blood-brain barrier (BBB) damage along with altered element levels in the brain. BBB permeability was quantified at 3, 7, and 14 days with Evans Blue dye after collagenase-induced ICH in rat. At peak permeability (day 3), a gadolinium (Gd)-based contrast agent was injected to further characterize BBB disruption, and X-ray fluorescence imaging (XFI) was used to map Gd, Fe, Cl, and other elements. XFI revealed that Ca, Cl, Gd, and Fe concentrations were significantly elevated, whereas K was significantly decreased. Therefore, using Gd-XFI, we co-determined BBB dysfunction with alterations in the metallome, including those that contribute to cell death and functional outcome. Warfarin was administered 3 days post-ICH to investigate whether additional or new bleeding occurs during peak BBB dysfunction, and hematoma volume was assessed on day 4. Warfarin administration prolonged bleeding time after a peripheral cut-induced bleed, but warfarin did not worsen hematoma volume. Accordingly, extensive BBB leakage occurred after ICH, but did not appear to affect total hematoma size.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Translational Stroke Research
#230
of 445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,873
of 328,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Stroke Research
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 445 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 328,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.