| Title |
Influence of nanomaterials on stem cell differentiation: designing an appropriate nanobiointerface
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s29975 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ioana Ilie, Razvan Ilie, Teodora Mocan, Dana Bartos, Lucian Mocan |
| Abstract |
During the last decade, due to advances in functionalization chemistry, novel nanobiomaterials with applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine have been developed. These novel materials with their unique physical and chemical properties are bioactive hierarchical structures that hold great promise for future development of human tissues. Thus, various nanomaterials are currently being intensively explored in the directed differentiation of stem cells, the design of novel bioactive scaffolds, and new research avenues towards tissue regeneration. This paper illustrates the latest achievements in the applications of nanotechnology in tissue engineering in the field of regenerative medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 20% |
| Researcher | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 13% |
| Materials Science | 11 | 11% |
| Engineering | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 April 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,113
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,504
of 173,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#50
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 173,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.