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 search for novel analgesics: re-examining spinal cord circuits with new tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2014.00022 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly M. Smith, Jessica F. Madden, Robert J. Callister, David I. Hughes, Brett A. Graham |
| Abstract |
In this perspective, we propose the absence of detailed information regarding spinal cord circuits that process sensory information remains a major barrier to advancing analgesia. We highlight recent advances showing that functionally discrete populations of neurons in the spinal cord dorsal horn (DH) play distinct roles in processing sensory information. We then discuss new molecular, electrophysiological, and optogenetic techniques that can be employed to understand how DH circuits process tactile and nociceptive information. We believe this information can drive the development of entirely new classes of pharmacotherapies that target key elements in spinal circuits to selectively modify sensory function and blunt pain. |
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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 12 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
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 25 February 2014.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#12,397
of 19,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,461
of 319,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 19,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 319,290 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 40 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.