↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular Risk Factors Emerge After Artificial Selection for Low Aerobic Capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2005
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
472 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Cardiovascular Risk Factors Emerge After Artificial Selection for Low Aerobic Capacity
Published in
Science, January 2005
DOI 10.1126/science.1108177
Pubmed ID
Authors

U. Wisloff

Abstract

In humans, the strong statistical association between fitness and survival suggests a link between impaired oxygen metabolism and disease. We hypothesized that artificial selection of rats based on low and high intrinsic exercise capacity would yield models that also contrast for disease risk. After 11 generations, rats with low aerobic capacity scored high on cardiovascular risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome. The decrease in aerobic capacity was associated with decreases in the amounts of transcription factors required for mitochondrial biogenesis and in the amounts of oxidative enzymes in skeletal muscle. Impairment of mitochondrial function may link reduced fitness to cardiovascular and metabolic disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 210 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 22%
Researcher 47 21%
Student > Master 27 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 10%
Professor 18 8%
Other 49 22%
Unknown 13 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 15%
Sports and Recreations 18 8%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 17 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,491,000
of 15,474,295 outputs
Outputs from Science
#24,077
of 66,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,420,891
of 14,526,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#24,063
of 66,554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,474,295 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 66,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 14,526,337 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66,554 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 63% of its contemporaries.