↓ Skip to main content

Scaffold and scaffold‐free self‐assembled systems in regenerative medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology & Bioengineering, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Scaffold and scaffold‐free self‐assembled systems in regenerative medicine
Published in
Biotechnology & Bioengineering, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/bit.25869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dilip Thomas, Diana Gaspar, Anna Sorushanova, Gesmi Milcovich, Kyriakos Spanoudes, Anne Maria Mullen, Timothy O'Brien, Abhay Pandit, Dimitrios I. Zeugolis

Abstract

Self-assembly in tissue engineering refers to the spontaneous chemical or biological association of components to form a distinct functional construct, reminiscent of native tissue. Such self-assembled systems have been widely used to develop platforms for the delivery of therapeutic and/or bioactive molecules and various cell populations. Tissue morphology and functional characteristics have been recapitulated in several self-assembled constructs, designed to incorporate stimuli responsiveness and controlled architecture through spatial confinement or field manipulation. In parallel, owing to substantial functional properties, scaffold-free cell-assembled devices have aided in the development of functional neotissues for various clinical targets. Herein, we discuss recent advancements and future aspirations in scaffold and scaffold-free self-assembled devices for regenerative medicine purposes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
China 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Professor 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 22%
Engineering 12 16%
Materials Science 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 17 23%
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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology & Bioengineering
#6,006
of 6,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,784
of 294,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology & Bioengineering
#46
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,450 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 294,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.