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 |
Nanocellulose reinforced gellan-gum hydrogels as potential biological substitutes for annulus fibrosus tissue regeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.nano.2017.11.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diana R. Pereira, Joana Silva-Correia, Joaquim M. Oliveira, Rui L. Reis, Abhay Pandit, Manus J. Biggs |
| Abstract |
Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is related to both structural damage and aging. Annulus fibrosus (AF) defects such as annular tears, herniation and discectomy require novel strategies to functionally repair AF tissue. An ideal construct will repair the AF by providing physical and biological support and by facilitating regeneration. The present strategy proposes a gellan gum-based construct reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals (nCell) as a biological self-gelling AF substitute. Nanocomposite hydrogels were fabricated and characterized for their swelling capacity and stability and physico-chemical properties. Rheological evaluation on the nanocomposites demonstrated the GGMA reinforcement with nCell and thus matrix entanglements with higher stiffness upon ionic crosslinking. Compressive mechanical tests demonstrate values close to those of the human AF tissue. Furthermore, cell culture studies by means of gel loading with bovine AF cells indicated that the construct promoted cell viability and a physiologically relevant morphology for up to fourteen days in vitro. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 2 | 40% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 19% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 13 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 10 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 38 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,338,190
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine
#423
of 1,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,398
of 445,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 445,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.