↓ Skip to main content

Stem cell transplantation in neurological diseases: improving effectiveness in animal models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2014
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
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Stem cell transplantation in neurological diseases: improving effectiveness in animal models
Published in
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fcell.2014.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raffaella Adami, Giuseppe Scesa, Daniele Bottai

Abstract

Neurological diseases afflict a growing proportion of the human population. There are two reasons for this: first, the average age of the population (especially in the industrialized world) is increasing, and second, the diagnostic tools to detect these pathologies are now more sophisticated and can be used on a higher percentage of the population. In many cases, neurological disease has a pharmacological treatment which, as in the case of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Epilepsy, and Multiple Sclerosis can reduce the symptoms and slow down the course of the disease but cannot reverse its effects or heal the patient. In the last two decades the transplantation approach, by means of stem cells of different origin, has been suggested for the treatment of neurological diseases. The choice of slightly different animal models and the differences in methods of stem cell preparation make it difficult to compare the results of transplantation experiments. Moreover, the translation of these results into clinical trials with human subjects is difficult and has so far met with little success. This review seeks to discuss the reasons for these difficulties by considering the differences between human and animal cells (including isolation, handling and transplantation) and between the human disease model and the animal disease model.

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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 97 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 13%
Neuroscience 10 10%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,300,431
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#3,921
of 8,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,638
of 227,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,971 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 227,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.