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 |
Oxygen Consumption Rate and Energy Expenditure in Mice: Indirect Calorimetry
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 13 |
| Book title |
Thermogenic Fat
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-6820-6_13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-6819-0, 978-1-4939-6820-6
|
| Authors |
Eun Ran Kim, Qingchun Tong |
| Editors |
Jun Wu |
| Abstract |
Global obesity epidemic demands more effective therapeutic treatments and better understanding of obesity pathophysiology. Since obesity results from energy imbalance, accurate quantification of energy intake and energy expenditure (EE) becomes an essential prerequisite to phenotype the cause for obesity development. Indirect calorimetry has long been used as one of the most established methods in EE quantification by detecting changes in levels of O2 consumption and CO2 production. In this article, we describe procedures and important considerations for an effective measurement using indirect calorimetry. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 40% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
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 23 February 2019.
All research outputs
#18,538,272
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,935
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,651
of 310,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#157
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 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 13,137 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 310,858 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 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.