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 |
Somatic Stem Cells and Their Dysfunction in Endometriosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00051 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dusan Djokovic, Carlos Calhaz-Jorge |
| Abstract |
Emerging evidence indicates that somatic stem cells (SSCs) of different types prominently contribute to endometrium-associated disorders such as endometriosis. We reviewed the pertinent studies available on PubMed, published in English language until December 2014 and focused on the involvement of SSCs in the pathogenesis of this common gynecological disease. A concise summary of the data obtained from in vitro experiments, animal models, and human tissue analyses provides insights into the SSC dysregulation in endometriotic lesions. In addition, a set of research results is presented supporting that SSC-targeting, in combination with hormonal therapy, may result in improved control of the disease, while a more in-depth characterization of endometriosis SSCs may contribute to the development of early-disease diagnostic tests with increased sensitivity and specificity. Key message: Seemingly essential for the establishment and progression of endometriotic lesions, dysregulated SSCs, and associated molecular alterations hold a promise as potential endometriosis markers and therapeutic targets. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
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 15 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,736,409
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#760
of 2,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,497
of 352,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,829 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 352,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.