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 |
Effect of Housing Types on Growth, Feeding, Physical Activity, and Anxiety-Like Behavior in Male Sprague-Dawley Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2016.00004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer A. Teske, Claudio Esteban Perez-Leighton, Emily E. Noble, Chuanfeng Wang, Charles J. Billington, Catherine M. Kotz |
| Abstract |
Animal welfare and accurate data collection are equally important in rodent research. Housing influences study outcomes and can challenge studies that monitor feeding, so housing choice needs to be evidence-based. The goal of these studies was to (1) compare established measures of well-being between rodents housed in wire grid-bottom floors with a resting platform compared to solid-bottom floors with bedding and (2) determine whether presence of a chewable device (Nylabone) affects orexin-A-induced hyperphagia. Rodents were crossed over to the alternate housing twice after 2-week periods. Time required to complete food intake measurements was recorded as an indicator of feasibility. Food intake stimulated by orexin-A was compared with and without the Nylabone. Blood corticosterone and hypothalamic BDNF were assessed. Housing had no effect on growth, energy expenditure, corticosterone, hypothalamic BDNF, behavior, and anxiety measures. Food intake was disrupted after housing cross-over. Time required to complete food intake measurements was significantly higher for solid-bottom bedded cages. The Nylabone had no effect on orexin-A-stimulated feeding. Well-being is not significantly different between rodents housed on grid-bottom floors and those in solid-bottom-bedded cages based on overall growth and feeding but alternating between housing confounds measures of feeding. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,706,522
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#2,169
of 4,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,597
of 397,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 397,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.