↓ Skip to main content

What are the Best Animal Models for Testing Early Intervention in Cerebral Palsy?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
What are the Best Animal Models for Testing Early Intervention in Cerebral Palsy?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2014.00258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gavin John Clowry, Reem Basuodan, Felix Chan

Abstract

Interventions to treat cerebral palsy should be initiated as soon as possible in order to restore the nervous system to the correct developmental trajectory. One drawback to this approach is that interventions have to undergo exceptionally rigorous assessment for both safety and efficacy prior to use in infants. Part of this process should involve research using animals but how good are our animal models? Part of the problem is that cerebral palsy is an umbrella term that covers a number of conditions. There are also many causal pathways to cerebral palsy, such as periventricular white matter injury in premature babies, perinatal infarcts of the middle cerebral artery, or generalized anoxia at the time of birth, indeed multiple causes, including intra-uterine infection or a genetic predisposition to infarction, may need to interact to produce a clinically significant injury. In this review, we consider which animal models best reproduce certain aspects of the condition, and the extent to which the multifactorial nature of cerebral palsy has been modeled. The degree to which the corticospinal system of various animal models human corticospinal system function and development is also explored. Where attempts have already been made to test early intervention in animal models, the outcomes are evaluated in light of the suitability of the model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 21 21%
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 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,311,799
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,737
of 11,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,581
of 360,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#53
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 360,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.