↓ Skip to main content

Nest Making and Oxytocin Comparably Promote Wound Healing in Isolation Reared Rats

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2009
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Nest Making and Oxytocin Comparably Promote Wound Healing in Isolation Reared Rats
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0005523
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Environmental enrichment (EE) fosters attachment behavior through its effect on brain oxytocin levels in the hippocampus and other brain regions, which in turn modulate the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA). Social isolation and other stressors negatively impact physical healing through their effect on the HPA. Therefore, we reasoned that: 1) provision of a rat EE (nest building with Nestlets) would improve wound healing in rats undergoing stress due to isolation rearing and 2) that oxytocin would have a similar beneficial effect on wound healing.

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 98 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 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 94 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 27%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Psychology 13 13%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,093,442
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#58,080
of 224,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,733
of 146,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#231
of 655 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 146,763 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 655 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.