↓ Skip to main content

Harnessing Hierarchical Nano- and Micro-Fabrication Technologies for Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Advanced Healthcare Materials, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Harnessing Hierarchical Nano- and Micro-Fabrication Technologies for Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering
Published in
Advanced Healthcare Materials, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/adhm.201500004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sunny A. Abbah, Luis M. Delgado, Ayesha Azeem, Kieran Fuller, Naledi Shologu, Michael Keeney, Manus J. Biggs, Abhay Pandit, Dimitrios I. Zeugolis

Abstract

Cells within a tissue are able to perceive, interpret and respond to the biophysical, biomechanical, and biochemical properties of the 3D extracellular matrix environment in which they reside. Such stimuli regulate cell adhesion, metabolic state, proliferation, migration, fate and lineage commitment, and ultimately, tissue morphogenesis and function. Current scaffold fabrication strategies in musculoskeletal tissue engineering seek to mimic the sophistication and comprehensiveness of nature to develop hierarchically assembled 3D implantable devices of different geometric dimensions (nano- to macrometric scales) that will offer control over cellular functions and ultimately achieve functional regeneration. Herein, advances and shortfalls of bottom-up (self-assembly, freeze-drying, rapid prototype, electrospinning) and top-down (imprinting) scaffold fabrication approaches, specific to musculoskeletal tissue engineering, are discussed and critically assessed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 7 16%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 10 22%
Engineering 9 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#10,268,491
of 13,458,562 outputs
Outputs from Advanced Healthcare Materials
#985
of 1,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,820
of 318,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advanced Healthcare Materials
#25
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,458,562 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.