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 |
Historical Review of the Fluid-Percussion TBI Model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2016.00217 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruce G. Lyeth |
| Abstract |
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major health concern worldwide. Laboratory studies utilizing animal models of TBI are essential for addressing pathological mechanisms of brain injury and development of innovative treatments. Over the past 75 years, pioneering head injury researchers have devised and tested a number of fluid percussive methods to reproduce the concussive clinical syndrome in animals. The fluid-percussion brain injury technique has evolved from early investigations that applied a generalized loading of the brain to more recent computer-controlled systems. Of the many preclinical TBI models, the fluid-percussion technique is one of the most extensively characterized and widely used models. Some of the most important advances involved the development of the Stalhammer device to produce concussion in cats and the later characterization of this device for application in rodents. The goal of this historical review is to provide readers with an appreciation for the time and effort expended by the pioneering researchers who have led to today's state of the art fluid-percussion animal models of TBI. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 14 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 17% |
| Engineering | 6 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,355,479
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,843
of 11,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#349,813
of 415,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 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 11,826 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 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 415,650 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 74 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.