↓ Skip to main content

Subcutaneous IGF-1 is not beneficial in 2-year ALS trial

Overview of attention for article published in Neurology, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Subcutaneous IGF-1 is not beneficial in 2-year ALS trial
Published in
Neurology, November 2008
DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000335970.78664.36
Pubmed ID
Authors

E J. Sorenson, A J. Windbank, J N. Mandrekar, W R. Bamlet, S H. Appel, C Armon, P E. Barkhaus, P Bosch, K Boylan, W S. David, E Feldman, J Glass, L Gutmann, J Katz, W King, C A. Luciano, L F. McCluskey, S Nash, D S. Newman, R M. Pascuzzi, E Pioro, L J. Sams, S Scelsa, E P. Simpson, S H. Subramony, E Tiryaki, C A. Thornton

Abstract

Previous human clinical trials of insulin-like growth factor type I (IGF-1) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have been inconsistent. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to address whether IGF-1 benefited patients with ALS.

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.
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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 42 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 24%
Neuroscience 21 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 48 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 September 2026.
All research outputs
#4,537,458
of 34,054,827 outputs
Outputs from Neurology
#7,869
of 26,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,418
of 243,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology
#25
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,054,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 243,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.