| Title |
Cognitive and behavioral evaluation of nutritional interventions in rodent models of brain aging and dementia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s145247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Devin Wahl, Sean CP Coogan, Samantha M Solon-Biet, Rafael de Cabo, James B Haran, David Raubenheimer, Victoria C Cogger, Mark P Mattson, Stephen J Simpson, David G Le Couteur |
| Abstract |
Evaluation of behavior and cognition in rodent models underpins mechanistic and interventional studies of brain aging and neurodegenerative diseases, especially dementia. Commonly used tests include Morris water maze, Barnes maze, object recognition, fear conditioning, radial arm water maze, and Y maze. Each of these tests reflects some aspects of human memory including episodic memory, recognition memory, semantic memory, spatial memory, and emotional memory. Although most interventional studies in rodent models of dementia have focused on pharmacological agents, there are an increasing number of studies that have evaluated nutritional interventions including caloric restriction, intermittent fasting, and manipulation of macronutrients. Dietary interventions have been shown to influence various cognitive and behavioral tests in rodents indicating that nutrition can influence brain aging and possibly neurodegeneration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 184 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 59 | 32% |
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 25 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,016,327
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#306
of 1,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,593
of 324,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#13
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 1,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 324,978 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.