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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
In vitro Characterization of an Electroactive Carbon‐Nanotube‐Based Nanofiber Scaffold for Tissue Engineering
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Macromolecular Bioscience, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/mabi.201100029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joseph N. Mackle, David J.‐P. Blond, Emma Mooney, Caitlin McDonnell, Werner J. Blau, Georgina Shaw, Frank P. Barry, J. Mary Murphy, Valerie Barron |
| Abstract |
In an effort to reduce organ replacement and enhance tissue repair, there has been a tremendous effort to create biomechanically optimized scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. In contrast, the development and characterization of electroactive scaffolds has attracted little attention. Consequently, the creation and characterization of a carbon nanotube based poly(lactic acid) nanofiber scaffold is described herein. After 28 d in physiological solution at 37 °C, a change in the mass, chemical properties and polymer morphology is seen, while the mechanical properties and physical integrity are unaltered. No adverse cytotoxic affects are seen when mesenchymal stem cells are cultured in the presence of the scaffold. Taken together, these data auger well for electroactive tissue engineering. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 37 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 24% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#2,679,057
of 24,629,540 outputs
Outputs from Macromolecular Bioscience
#54
of 1,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,557
of 120,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Macromolecular Bioscience
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,629,540 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,932 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 120,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.