↓ Skip to main content

The two halves of U-shaped mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
The two halves of U-shaped mortality
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel A. Levitis, Daniel E. Martínez

Abstract

Gerontology focuses on deterioration with increasing age, but in most populations most variables, including survival probability, improve at early ages (ontogenescence) before deteriorating at advanced ages (senescence). The extent to which gerontology needs to consider this U-shaped pattern of risk over age depends upon the mechanistic, demographic and evolutionary links and interactions between ontogenescence and senescence. In reading the literature on both senescence and ontogenescence, and in interacting with other biogerontologists, we have encountered a set of what we view as inaccurate or oversimplified claims about ontogenescence, its relationship to senescence and its importance to gerontology. Here, after briefly introducing ontogenescence, we address four of these claims. We demonstrate the counterfactual nature of Claim 1. Ontogenescence is an environmental effect largely absent in protected environments. We then briefly review the literature which leads to Claim 2. Senescence and ontogenescence are parts of the same phenomenon, and describe why we reject this view. We then explain why the rejection of Claim 2 does not necessarily support Claim 3, the idea that senescence and ontogenescence are easily separable. Finally, we examine Claim 4. Gerontologists don't need to think about ontogenescence, and give some examples of why we consider this misguided.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Mexico 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 32%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
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 19 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,185,720
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#8,522
of 11,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,721
of 280,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#263
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,755 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.