↓ Skip to main content

Osteoporosis and autophagy: What is the relationship?

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, February 2017
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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Osteoporosis and autophagy: What is the relationship?
Published in
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, February 2017
DOI 10.1590/1806-9282.63.02.173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rinaldo Florencio-Silva, Gisela Rodrigues da Silva Sasso, Manuel de Jesus Simões, Ricardo Santos Simões, Maria Cândida Pinheiro Baracat, Estela Sasso-Cerri, Paulo Sérgio Cerri

Abstract

Autophagy is a survival pathway wherein non-functional proteins and organelles are degraded in lysosomes for recycling and energy production. Therefore, autophagy is fundamental for the maintenance of cell viability, acting as a quality control process that prevents the accumulation of unnecessary structures and oxidative stress. Increasing evidence has shown that autophagy dysfunction is related to several pathologies including neurodegenerative diseases and cancer. Moreover, recent studies have shown that autophagy plays an important role for the maintenance of bone homeostasis. For instance, in vitro and animal and human studies indicate that autophagy dysfunction in bone cells is associated with the onset of bone diseases such as osteoporosis. This review had the purpose of discussing the issue to confirm whether a relationship between autophagy dysfunction and osteoporosis exits.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 26%

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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,585,167
of 12,577,171 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#128
of 452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,955
of 256,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,577,171 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 452 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 256,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.