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 |
Relationships between Rodent White Adipose Fat Pads and Human White Adipose Fat Depots
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2016.00010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniella E. Chusyd, Donghai Wang, Derek M. Huffman, Tim R. Nagy |
| Abstract |
The objective of this review was to compare and contrast the physiological and metabolic profiles of rodent white adipose fat pads with white adipose fat depots in humans. Human fat distribution and its metabolic consequences have received extensive attention, but much of what has been tested in translational research has relied heavily on rodents. Unfortunately, the validity of using rodent fat pads as a model of human adiposity has received less attention. There is a surprisingly lack of studies demonstrating an analogous relationship between rodent and human adiposity on obesity-related comorbidities. Therefore, we aimed to compare known similarities and disparities in terms of white adipose tissue (WAT) development and distribution, sexual dimorphism, weight loss, adipokine secretion, and aging. While the literature supports the notion that many similarities exist between rodents and humans, notable differences emerge related to fat deposition and function of WAT. Thus, further research is warranted to more carefully define the strengths and limitations of rodent WAT as a model for humans, with a particular emphasis on comparable fat depots, such as mesenteric fat. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Czechia | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 462 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 462 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 98 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 13% |
| Researcher | 54 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 49 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 11% |
| Unknown | 121 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 109 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 68 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 20 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 14 | 3% |
| Other | 66 | 14% |
| Unknown | 144 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 24 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,887,852
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#584
of 4,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,493
of 300,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 300,358 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.