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 |
Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Nanotechnology, May 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nnano.2008.111 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Craig A. Poland, Rodger Duffin, Ian Kinloch, Andrew Maynard, William A. H. Wallace, Anthony Seaton, Vicki Stone, Simon Brown, William MacNee, Ken Donaldson |
| Abstract |
Carbon nanotubes have distinctive characteristics, but their needle-like fibre shape has been compared to asbestos, raising concerns that widespread use of carbon nanotubes may lead to mesothelioma, cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos. Here we show that exposing the mesothelial lining of the body cavity of mice, as a surrogate for the mesothelial lining of the chest cavity, to long multiwalled carbon nanotubes results in asbestos-like, length-dependent, pathogenic behaviour. This includes inflammation and the formation of lesions known as granulomas. This is of considerable importance, because research and business communities continue to invest heavily in carbon nanotubes for a wide range of products under the assumption that they are no more hazardous than graphite. Our results suggest the need for further research and great caution before introducing such products into the market if long-term harm is to be avoided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 8 | 23% |
| Morocco | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 66% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 33 | 94% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,056 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 19 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 16 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | <1% |
| France | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Japan | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 2% |
| Unknown | 982 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 241 | 23% |
| Researcher | 188 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 141 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 101 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 47 | 4% |
| Other | 179 | 17% |
| Unknown | 159 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 147 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 141 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 113 | 11% |
| Materials Science | 111 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 64 | 6% |
| Other | 255 | 24% |
| Unknown | 225 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 185. 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 11 December 2023.
All research outputs
#219,182
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Nature Nanotechnology
#136
of 3,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#361
of 100,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Nanotechnology
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 100,915 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 96% of its contemporaries.