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 |
Pío del Río-Hortega: A Visionary in the Pathology of Central Nervous System Tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnana.2016.00013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Santiago Ramon y Cajal Agüeras |
| Abstract |
The last 140 years have seen considerable advances in knowledge of central nervous system tumors. However, the main tumor types had already been described during the early years of the twentieth century. The studies of Dr. Pío del Río Hortega have been ones of the most exhaustive histology and cytology-based studies of nervous system tumors. Río Hortega's work was performed using silver staining methods, which require a high level of practical skill and were therefore difficult to standardize. His technical aptitude and interest in nervous system tumors played a key role in the establishment of his classification, which was based on cell lineage and embryonic development. Río Hortega's approach was controversial when he proposed it. Current classifications are not only based on cell type and embryonic lineage, as well as on clinical characteristics, anatomical site, and age. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 20% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#12,887,244
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#526
of 1,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,534
of 298,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#15
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 298,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 65% of its contemporaries.