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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Generating genius: how an Alzheimer’s drug became considered a ‘cognitive enhancer’ for healthy individuals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-37 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucie Wade, Cynthia Forlini, Eric Racine |
| Abstract |
Donepezil, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, has been widely cited in media and bioethics literature on cognitive enhancement (CE) as having the potential to improve the cognitive ability of healthy individuals. In both literatures, this claim has been repeatedly supported by the results of a small study published by Yesavage et al. in 2002 on non-demented pilots (30-70 years old). The factors contributing to this specific interpretation of this study's results are unclear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 74 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 24% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 18 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,596,286
of 24,083,187 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#141
of 1,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,202
of 231,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,083,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 231,311 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.