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 Intriguing Regulators of Muscle Mass in Sarcopenia and Muscular Dystrophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00230 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kunihiro Sakuma, Wataru Aoi, Akihiko Yamaguchi |
| Abstract |
Recent advances in our understanding of the biology of muscle have led to new interest in the pharmacological treatment of muscle wasting. Loss of muscle mass and increased intramuscular fibrosis occur in both sarcopenia and muscular dystrophy. Several regulators (mammalian target of rapamycin, serum response factor, atrogin-1, myostatin, etc.) seem to modulate protein synthesis and degradation or transcription of muscle-specific genes during both sarcopenia and muscular dystrophy. This review provides an overview of the adaptive changes in several regulators of muscle mass in both sarcopenia and muscular dystrophy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 3 | 21% |
| Japan | 2 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 6 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 29 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 15 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,452,616
of 24,833,726 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,250
of 5,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,331
of 241,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#17
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,833,726 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 241,970 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 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.