↓ Skip to main content

Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter: Building Robustness into Translational Research.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
1 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.
Chapter title
Building Robustness into Translational Research.
Book title
Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, October 2019
DOI 10.1007/164_2019_283
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-03-033655-4, 978-3-03-033656-1
Authors

Betül R. Erdogan, Martin C. Michel

Abstract

Nonclinical studies form the basis for the decision whether to take a therapeutic candidate into the clinic. These studies need to exhibit translational robustness for both ethical and economic reasons. Key findings confirmed in multiple species have a greater chance to also occur in humans. Given the heterogeneity of patient populations, preclinical studies or at least programs comprising multiple studies need to reflect such heterogeneity, e.g., regarding strains, sex, age, and comorbidities of experimental animals. However, introducing such heterogeneity requires larger studies/programs to maintain statistical power in the face of greater variability. In addition to classic sources of bias, e.g., related to lack of randomization and concealment, translational studies face specific sources of potential bias such as that introduced by a model that may not reflect the full spectrum of underlying pathophysiology in patients, that defined by timing of treatment, or that implied in dosing decisions and interspecies differences in pharmacokinetic profiles. The balance of all these factors needs to be considered carefully for each study and program.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,668,471
of 15,077,480 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#114
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,135
of 344,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,077,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 344,665 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.