| Title |
Stem cell transplantation therapy in Parkinson’s disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1400-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mu-Hui Fu, Chia-Ling Li, Hsiu-Lien Lin, Pei-Chun Chen, Marcus J. Calkins, Yu-Fan Chang, Pei-Hsun Cheng, Shang-Hsun Yang |
| Abstract |
Ineffective therapeutic treatments and inadequate repair ability in the central nervous system are disturbing problems for several neurological diseases. Fortunately, the development of clinically applicable populations of stem cells has provided an avenue to overcome the failure of endogenous repair systems and substitute new cells into the damaged brain. However, there are still several existing obstacles to translating into clinical application. Here we review the stem-cell based therapies for Parkinson's disease and discuss the potential advantages and drawbacks. We hope this review may provide suggestions for viable strategies to overcome the current technical and biological issues associated with the application of stem cells in Parkinson's disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 23% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,568,198
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#151
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,303
of 279,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#16
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 279,229 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.