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 |
The Long Path of Human Placenta, and Its Derivatives, in Regenerative Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00162 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonietta R. Silini, Anna Cargnoni, Marta Magatti, Stefano Pianta, Ornella Parolini |
| Abstract |
In the 1800s, a baby born with a caul, a remnant of the amniotic sack or fetal membranes, was thought to be lucky, special, or protected. Over time, fetal membranes lost their legendary power and were soon considered nothing more than biological waste after birth. However, placenta tissues have reclaimed their potential and since the early 1900s an increasing body of evidence has shown that these tissues have clinical benefits in a wide range of wound repair and surgical applications. Nowadays, there is a concerted effort to understand the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of placental tissues, and, more recently, cells derived thereof. This review will summarize the historical and current clinical applications of human placental tissues, and cells isolated from these tissues, and discuss some mechanisms thought to be responsible for the therapeutic effects observed after tissue and/or cell transplantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 45 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 9% |
| Engineering | 8 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 50 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,688,230
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#493
of 7,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,418
of 285,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#4
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 285,304 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 93% of its contemporaries.