↓ Skip to main content

General Parity between Trio and Pairwise Breeding of Laboratory Mice in Static Caging

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Immunology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
General Parity between Trio and Pairwise Breeding of Laboratory Mice in Static Caging
Published in
The Journal of Immunology, November 2014
DOI 10.4049/jimmunol.1402306
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Changes made in the 8th edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals included new recommendations for the amount of space for breeding female mice. Adopting the new recommendations required, in essence, the elimination of trio breeding practices for all institutions. Both public opinion and published data did not readily support the new recommendations. In response, the National Jewish Health Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee established a program to directly compare the effects of breeding format on mouse pup survival and growth. Our study showed an overall parity between trio and pairwise breeding formats on the survival and growth of the litters, suggesting that the housing recommendations for breeding female mice as stated in the current Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals should be reconsidered.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 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 %
Mexico 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 31%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 23%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 1 4%
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 24 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Immunology
#24,427
of 27,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,627
of 258,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Immunology
#162
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 258,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.