↓ Skip to main content

Models for preclinical studies in aging-related disorders: One is not for all.

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Medicine @ UniSa, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Models for preclinical studies in aging-related disorders: One is not for all.
Published in
Translational Medicine @ UniSa, January 2016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gaetano Santulli, Consuelo Borras, Jean Bousquet, Laura Calzà, Antonio Cano, Maddalena Illario, Claudio Franceschi, Giuseppe Liotta, Marcello Maggio, William D Molloy, Nunzia Montuori, Rónán O'Caoimh, Francesc Orfila, Amelia P Rauter, Aurelia Santoro, Guido Iaccarino

Abstract

Preclinical studies are essentially based on animal models of a particular disease. The primary purpose of preclinical efficacy studies is to support generalization of treatment-effect relationships to human subjects. Researchers aim to demonstrate a causal relationship between an investigational agent and a disease-related phenotype in such models. Numerous factors can muddle reliable inferences about such cause-effect relationships, including biased outcome assessment due to experimenter expectations. For instance, responses in a particular inbred mouse might be specific to the strain, limiting generalizability. Selecting well-justified and widely acknowledged model systems represents the best start in designing preclinical studies, especially to overcome any potential bias related to the model itself. This is particularly true in the research that focuses on aging, which carries unique challenges, mainly attributable to the fact that our already long lifespan makes designing experiments that use people as subjects extremely difficult and largely impractical.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,996,491
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Translational Medicine @ UniSa
#13
of 54 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,266
of 406,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Medicine @ UniSa
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 54 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 406,576 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.