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
| Chapter title |
Skeletal Muscle Regeneration in the Mouse
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 21 |
| Book title |
Skeletal Muscle Regeneration in the Mouse
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3810-0_21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3808-7, 978-1-4939-3810-0
|
| Authors |
Greising, Sarah M, Mantilla, Carlos B, Sieck, Gary C, Sarah M. Greising, Carlos B. Mantilla, Gary C. Sieck |
| Editors |
Michael Kyba |
| Abstract |
The diaphragm muscle must be able to generate sufficient forces to accomplish a range of ventilatory and non-ventilatory behaviors throughout life. Measurements of transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) can be conducted during eupnea, hypoxia (10 % O2)-hypercapnia (5 % CO2), chemical airway stimulation (i.e., sneezing), spontaneously occurring deep breaths (i.e., sighs), sustained airway or tracheal occlusion, and maximal efforts elicited via bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation, representing the full range of motor behaviors available by the diaphragm muscle. We provide detailed methods on the in vivo measurements of Pdi in mice. |
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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 24% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 5 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
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 07 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#9,921
of 13,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,749
of 393,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#1,054
of 1,471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 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 13,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 393,703 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 1,471 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.