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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Considering the evolution of regeneration in the central nervous system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, October 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nrn2707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elly M. Tanaka, Patrizia Ferretti |
| Abstract |
For many years the mammalian CNS has been seen as an organ that is unable to regenerate. However, it was also long known that lower vertebrate species are capable of impressive regeneration of CNS structures. How did this situation arise through evolution? Increasing cellular and molecular understanding of regeneration in different animal species coupled with studies of adult neurogenesis in mammals is providing a basis for addressing this question. Here we compare CNS regeneration among vertebrates and speculate on how this ability may have emerged or been restricted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 568 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 3% |
| Germany | 8 | 1% |
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| China | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| India | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 2% |
| Unknown | 507 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 121 | 21% |
| Researcher | 110 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 72 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 63 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 38 | 7% |
| Other | 112 | 20% |
| Unknown | 52 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 238 | 42% |
| Neuroscience | 74 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 73 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 10% |
| Psychology | 19 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 7% |
| Unknown | 65 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,820,408
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Neuroscience
#802
of 2,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,785
of 93,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Neuroscience
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. 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 93,236 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 57% of its contemporaries.