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 |
Pathophysiology of Bone Fragility in Patients with Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Calcified Tissue International, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00223-016-0226-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Palermo, Luca D’Onofrio, Raffaella Buzzetti, Silvia Manfrini, Nicola Napoli |
| Abstract |
It has been well established that bone fragility is one of the chronic complications of diabetes mellitus, and both type 1 and type 2 diabetes are risk factors for fragility fractures. Diabetes may negatively affect bone health by unbalancing several pathways: bone formation, bone resorption, collagen formation, inflammatory cytokine, muscular and incretin system, bone marrow adiposity and calcium metabolism. The purpose of this narrative review is to explore the current understanding of pathophysiological pathways underlying bone fragility in diabetics. In particular, the review will focus on the peculiar cellular and molecular system impairment that may lead to increased risk of fracture in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Brazil | 2 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Scientists | 7 | 39% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 106 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Professor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 22% |
| Unknown | 28 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 32% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,004,075
of 23,692,259 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#206
of 1,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,134
of 423,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,692,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,813 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 88% 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 423,412 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 91% of its contemporaries.