↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1747-5333-1-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

André M Goffinet

Abstract

For a neurobiologist, the core of human nature is the human cerebral cortex, especially the prefrontal areas, and the question "what makes us human?" translates into studies of the development and evolution of the human cerebral cortex, a clear oversimplification. In this comment, after pointing out this oversimplification, I would like to show that it is impossible to understand our cerebral cortex if we focus too narrowly on it. Like other organs, our cortex evolved from that in stem amniotes, and it still bears marks of that ancestry. More comparative studies of brain development are clearly needed if we want to understand our brain in its historical context. Similarly, comparative genomics is a superb tool to help us understand evolution, but again, studies should not be limited to mammals or to comparisons between human and chimpanzee, and more resources should be invested in investigation of many vertebrate phyla. Finally, the most widely used rodent models for studies of cortical development are of obvious interest but they cannot be considered models of a "stem cortex" from which the human type evolved. It remains of paramount importance to study cortical development directly in other species, particularly in primate models, and, whenever ethically justifiable, in human.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 47%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,583,500
of 23,292,144 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#5
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,348
of 156,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,292,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one scored the same or higher as 7 of them.
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 156,132 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.