↓ Skip to main content

Graphene-Derived Materials Interfacing the Spinal Cord: Outstanding in Vitro and in Vivo Findings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Graphene-Derived Materials Interfacing the Spinal Cord: Outstanding in Vitro and in Vivo Findings
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Domínguez-Bajo, Ankor González-Mayorga, Elisa López-Dolado, María C. Serrano

Abstract

The attractiveness of graphene-derived materials (GDMs) for neural applications has fueled their exploration as components of biomaterial interfaces contacting the brain and the spinal cord. In the last years, an increasing body of work has been published on the ability of these materials to create biocompatible and biofunctional substrates able to promote the growth and activity of neural cells in vitro and positively interact with neural tissues when implanted in vivo. Encouraging results in the central nervous tissue might impulse the study of GDMs towards preclinical arena. In this mini-review article, we revise the most relevant literature on the interaction of GDMs with the spinal cord. Studies involving the implantation of these materials in vivo in the injured spinal cord are first discussed, followed by models with spinal cord slides ex vivo and a final description of selected results with neural cells in vitro. A closing debate of the major conclusions of these results is presented to boost the investigation of GDMs in the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 23%
Chemistry 3 7%
Materials Science 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,858,155
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#243
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,066
of 328,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 328,804 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.