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 |
The Use of Rat and Mouse Models in Bariatric Surgery Experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2016.00025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas A. Lutz, Marco Bueter |
| Abstract |
Animal models have been proven to be a crucial tool for investigating the physiological mechanisms underlying bariatric surgery in general and individual techniques in particular. By using a translational approach, most of these studies have been performed in rodents and have helped to understand how bariatric surgery may or may not work. However, data from studies using animal models should always be critically evaluated for their transferability to the human physiology. It is, therefore, the aim of this review to summarize both advantages and limitations of data generated by animal based experiments designed to investigate and understand the physiological mechanisms at the root of bariatric surgery. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#3,038
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,923
of 366,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 366,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.