| Title |
Age-related reduction of cerebral ischemic preconditioning: myth or reality?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s47462 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Della-Morte, Francesco Cacciatore, Elisa Salsano, Gilda Pirozzi, Maria Teresa Del Genio, Iole D’Antonio, Gaetano Gargiulo, Raffaele Palmirotta, Fiorella Guadagni, Tatjana Rundek, Pasquale Abete |
| Abstract |
Stroke is one of the leading causes of death in industrialized countries for people older than 65 years of age. The reasons are still unclear. A reduction of endogenous mechanisms against ischemic insults has been proposed to explain this phenomenon. The "cerebral" ischemic preconditioning mechanism is characterized by a brief episode of ischemia that renders the brain more resistant against subsequent longer ischemic events. This ischemic tolerance has been shown in numerous experimental models of cerebral ischemia. This protective mechanism seems to be reduced with aging both in experimental and clinical studies. Alterations of mediators released and/or intracellular pathways may be responsible for age-related ischemic preconditioning reduction. Agents able to mimic the "cerebral" preconditioning effect may represent a new powerful tool for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in the elderly. In this article, animal and human cerebral ischemic preconditioning, its age-related difference, and its potential therapeutical applications are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 November 2013.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,102
of 1,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,138
of 210,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#34
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 210,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.