↓ Skip to main content

Comparative cardiovascular physiology: future trends, opportunities and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Physiologica, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Comparative cardiovascular physiology: future trends, opportunities and challenges
Published in
Acta Physiologica, January 2013
DOI 10.1111/apha.12170
Pubmed ID
Authors

Burggren, W. W., Christoffels, V. M., Crossley, D. A., Enok, S., Farrell, A. P., Hedrick, M. S., Hicks, J. W., Jensen, B., Moorman, A. F. M., Mueller, C. A., Skovgaard, N., Taylor, E. W., Wang, T.

Abstract

The inaugural Kjell Johansen lecture in the Zoophysiology Department of Aarhus University (Aarhus, Denmark), afforded the opportunity for a focused workshop comprising comparative cardiovascular physiologists to ponder some of the key unanswered questions in the field. Discussions were centered around three themes. The first considered function of the vertebrate heart in its various forms in extant vertebrates, with particular focus on the role of intracardiac shunts, the trabecular ("spongy") nature of the ventricle in many vertebrates, coronary blood supply and the building plan of the heart as revealed by molecular approaches. The second theme involved the key unanswered questions in the control of the cardiovascular system, emphasizing autonomic control, hypoxic vasoconstriction and developmental plasticity in cardiovascular control. The final theme involved poorly understood aspects of the interaction of the cardiovascular system with the lymphatic, renal and digestive systems. Having posed key questions around these three themes, it is increasingly clear that an abundance of new analytical tools and approaches will allow us to learn much about vertebrate cardiovascular systems in the coming years. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 20%
Other 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 60%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 September 2013.
All research outputs
#4,679,265
of 6,332,275 outputs
Outputs from Acta Physiologica
#325
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,105
of 111,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Physiologica
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,332,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 527 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 111,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.