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 |
Equivalence of Conventionally-Derived and Parthenote-Derived Human Embryonic Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0014499 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie V. Harness, Nikolay A. Turovets, Magdalene J. Seiler, Gabriel Nistor, Gulsah Altun, Larissa S. Agapova, David Ferguson, Louise C. Laurent, Jeanne F. Loring, Hans S. Keirstead |
| Abstract |
As human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines can be derived via multiple means, it is important to determine particular characteristics of individual lines that may dictate the applications to which they are best suited. The objective of this work was to determine points of equivalence and differences between conventionally-derived hESC and parthenote-derived hESC lines (phESC) in the undifferentiated state and during neural differentiation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 45% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,331,431
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#28,561
of 217,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,346
of 193,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#204
of 1,164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217,685 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 well, scoring higher than 86% 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 193,209 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 1,164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.