↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Coffee and Cacao Purine Metabolites on Neuroplasticity and Neurodegenerative Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Neurochemical Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 1,415)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Coffee and Cacao Purine Metabolites on Neuroplasticity and Neurodegenerative Disease
Published in
Neurochemical Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11064-018-2492-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simonetta Camandola, Natalie Plick, Mark P. Mattson

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that regular consumption of coffee, tea and dark chocolate (cacao) can promote brain health and may reduce the risk of age-related neurodegenerative disorders. However, the complex array of phytochemicals in coffee and cacao beans and tea leaves has hindered a clear understanding of the component(s) that affect neuronal plasticity and resilience. One class of phytochemicals present in relatively high amounts in coffee, tea and cacao are methylxanthines. Among such methylxanthines, caffeine has been the most widely studied and has clear effects on neuronal network activity, promotes sustained cognitive performance and can protect neurons against dysfunction and death in animal models of stroke, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Caffeine's mechanism of action relies on antagonism of various subclasses of adenosine receptors. Downstream xanthine metabolites, such as theobromine and theophylline, may also contribute to the beneficial effects of coffee, tea and cacao on brain health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 30%
Unspecified 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,086,743
of 13,629,017 outputs
Outputs from Neurochemical Research
#26
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,431
of 352,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurochemical Research
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,629,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 352,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.