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 |
Is There Any Reason to Prefer Cord Blood Instead of Adult Donors for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2015.00095 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meral Beksac |
| Abstract |
As cord blood (CB) enables rapid access and tolerance to HLA mismatches, a number of unrelated CB transplants have reached 30,000. Such transplant activity has been the result of international accreditation programs maintaining highly qualified cord blood units (CBUs) reaching more than 600,000 CBUs stored worldwide. Efforts to increase stem cell content or engraftment rate of the graft by ex vivo expansion, modulation by molecules such as fucose, prostaglandin E2 derivative, complement CD26 inhibitors, or CXCR4/CXCL12 axis have been able to accelerate engraftment speed and rate. Furthermore, introduction of reduced intensity conditioning protocols, better HLA matching, and recognition of the importance of HLA-C have improved CB transplants success by decreasing transplant-related mortality. CB progenitor/stem cell content has been compared with adult stem cells revealing higher long-term repopulating capacity compared to bone marrow-mesenchymal stromal cells and lesser oncogenic potential than progenitor-induced stem cells. This chapter summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of CB compared to adult stem cells within the context of stem cell biology and transplantation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 28% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 48% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#6,359
of 7,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#342,835
of 400,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 7,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. 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 400,967 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.