↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Rodent Models of Type 2 Diabetic Skeletal Fragility

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
207 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.
Article details
Title
A Review of Rodent Models of Type 2 Diabetic Skeletal Fragility
Published in
Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/jbmr.2210
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Evidence indicating that adult type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased fracture risk continues to mount. Unlike osteoporosis, diabetic fractures are associated with obesity and normal to high bone mineral density, two factors that are typically associated with reduced fracture risk. Animal models will likely play a critical role in efforts to identify the underlying mechanisms of skeletal fragility in T2D and to develop preventative treatments. In this review we critically examine the ability of current rodent models of T2D to mimic the skeletal characteristics of human T2D. We report that although there are numerous rodent models of T2D, few have undergone thorough assessments of bone metabolism and strength. Further, we find that many of the available rodent models of T2D have limitations for studies of skeletal fragility in T2D because the onset of diabetes is often prior to skeletal maturation and bone mass is low, in contrast to what is seen in adult humans. There is an urgent need to characterize the skeletal phenotype of existing models of T2D, and to develop new models that more closely mimic the skeletal effects seen in adult-onset T2D in humans.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 204 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Master 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 69 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 8%
Engineering 15 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 80 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 07 March 2014.
All research outputs
#24,893,066
of 34,517,289 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#5,094
of 5,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,998
of 266,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#52
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,517,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 266,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.