↓ Skip to main content

A determinação biológica dos transtornos mentais: uma discussão a partir de teses neurocientíficas recentes

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
A determinação biológica dos transtornos mentais: uma discussão a partir de teses neurocientíficas recentes
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, August 2016
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00168115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luna Rodrigues Freitas-Silva, Francisco Ortega

Abstract

Understanding the processes involved in the development of mental disorders has proven challenging ever since psychiatry was founded as a field. Neuroscience has provided new expectations that an explanation will be found for the development of mental disorders based on biological functioning alone. However, such a goal has not been that easy to achieve, and new hypotheses have begun to appear in neuroscience research. In this article we identify epigenetics, neurodevelopment, and plasticity as the principal avenues for a new understanding of the biology of mental phenomena. Genetic complexity, the environment's formative role, and variations in vulnerability involve important changes in the principal hypotheses on biological determination of mental disorders, suggesting a reconfiguration of the limits between the "social" and the "biological" in neuroscience research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 23%
Student > Master 9 17%
Other 6 11%
Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Psychology 10 19%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#897
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,817
of 349,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 349,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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.