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 |
Cardiac electrophysiology in mice: a matter of size
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2012.00345 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Kaese, Sander Verheule |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade, mouse models have become a popular instrument for studying cardiac arrhythmias. This review assesses in which respects a mouse heart is a miniature human heart, a suitable model for studying mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmias in humans and in which respects human and murine hearts differ. Section I considers the issue of scaling of mammalian cardiac (electro) physiology to body mass. Then, we summarize differences between mice and humans in cardiac activation (section II) and the currents underlying the action potential in the murine working myocardium (section III). Changes in cardiac electrophysiology in mouse models of heart disease are briefly outlined in section IV, while section V discusses technical considerations pertaining to recording cardiac electrical activity in mice. Finally, section VI offers general considerations on the influence of cardiac size on the mechanisms of tachy-arrhythmias. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 248 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 25% |
| Researcher | 34 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 12% |
| Unknown | 53 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 32 | 13% |
| Engineering | 19 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 13% |
| Unknown | 65 | 26% |
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 24 October 2020.
All research outputs
#13,871,657
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,865
of 13,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,731
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#121
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.