↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive and behavioral evaluation of nutritional interventions in rodent models of brain aging and dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Cognitive and behavioral evaluation of nutritional interventions in rodent models of brain aging and dementia
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s145247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Devin Wahl, Sean Coogan, Samantha Solon-Biet, Rafael de Cabo, James Haran, David Raubenheimer, Victoria Cogger, Mark Mattson, Stephen Simpson, David Le Couteur

Abstract

Evaluation of behavior and cognition in rodent models underpins mechanistic and interventional studies of brain aging and neurodegenerative diseases, especially dementia. Commonly used tests include Morris water maze, Barnes maze, object recognition, fear conditioning, radial arm water maze, and Y maze. Each of these tests reflects some aspects of human memory including episodic memory, recognition memory, semantic memory, spatial memory, and emotional memory. Although most interventional studies in rodent models of dementia have focused on pharmacological agents, there are an increasing number of studies that have evaluated nutritional interventions including caloric restriction, intermittent fasting, and manipulation of macronutrients. Dietary interventions have been shown to influence various cognitive and behavioral tests in rodents indicating that nutrition can influence brain aging and possibly neurodegeneration.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Master 18 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 39 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 19%
Neuroscience 19 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 45 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,731,682
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#296
of 1,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,772
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#15
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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.