↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Brain in flames – animal models of psychosis: utility and limitations

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Brain in flames – animal models of psychosis: utility and limitations
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s65564
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Wolf, Daniele Mattei, Regina Schweibold

Abstract

The neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia posits that schizophrenia is a psychopathological condition resulting from aberrations in neurodevelopmental processes caused by a combination of environmental and genetic factors which proceed long before the onset of clinical symptoms. Many studies discuss an immunological component in the onset and progression of schizophrenia. We here review studies utilizing animal models of schizophrenia with manipulations of genetic, pharmacologic, and immunological origin. We focus on the immunological component to bridge the studies in terms of evaluation and treatment options of negative, positive, and cognitive symptoms. Throughout the review we link certain aspects of each model to the situation in human schizophrenic patients. In conclusion we suggest a combination of existing models to better represent the human situation. Moreover, we emphasize that animal models represent defined single or multiple symptoms or hallmarks of a given disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 82 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Psychology 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 28 33%

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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,944,553
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,399
of 2,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,033
of 264,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#43
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 264,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.