↓ Skip to main content

Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Evidence of Prostatic Stones at Al Khiday Cemetery, Central Sudan

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
14 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

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.
Title
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Evidence of Prostatic Stones at Al Khiday Cemetery, Central Sudan
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0169524
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donatella Usai, Lara Maritan, Gregorio Dal Sasso, Gilberto Artioli, Sandro Salvatori, Tina Jakob, Tiziana Salviato

Abstract

The recovery of three stone-like ovoid objects within the burial of a pre-Mesolithic (Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene) individual at Al Khiday cemetery (Central Sudan) raises the question of the nature and origin of these objects. The position in which the objects were found in relation to the human skeleton suggested a pathological condition affecting the individual, possibly urinary bladder, kidney stones or gallstones. To solve this issue, a multi-analytical approach, consisting of tomographic, microstructural and compositional analyses, was therefore performed. Based on their microstructure and mineralogical composition, consisting of hydroxylapatite and whitlockite, the investigated stones were identified as primary (endogenous) prostatic calculi. In addition, the occurrence of bacterial imprints also indicates on-going infectious processes in the individual. This discovery of the earliest known case of lithiasis extends the appearance of prostatic stones into the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, a disease which therefore can no longer be considered exclusive to the modern era, but which also affected prehistoric individuals, whose lifestyle and diet were significantly different to our own.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 29 November 2023.
All research outputs
#438,519
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,141
of 220,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,494
of 422,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#149
of 4,295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 422,461 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,295 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 96% of its contemporaries.