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 |
How Useful Are Monogenic Rodent Models for the Study of Human Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in endocrinology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fendo.2016.00145 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jake P. Mann, Robert K. Semple, Matthew J. Armstrong |
| Abstract |
Improving understanding of the genetic basis of human non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has the potential to facilitate risk stratification of affected patients, permit personalized treatment, and inform development of new therapeutic strategies. Animal models have been widely used to interrogate the pathophysiology of, and genetic predisposition to, NAFLD. Nevertheless, considerable interspecies differences in intermediary metabolism potentially limit the extent to which results can be extrapolated to humans. For example, human genome-wide association studies have identified polymorphisms in PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 as the two most prevalent determinants of susceptibility to NAFLD and its inflammatory component (NASH), but animal models of these mutations have had only variable success in recapitulating this link. In this review, we critically appraise selected murine monogenic models of NAFLD, NASH, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with a focus on how closely they mirror human disease. |
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 Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 24% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#4,375
of 13,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,957
of 288,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#19
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,004 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 288,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.