| Title |
Experimental mismatch in neural circuits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nature16323 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas C. Südhof |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 12 | 14% |
| United States | 8 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 6% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Turkey | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 38 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 64 | 76% |
| Scientists | 17 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 30% |
| Researcher | 31 | 24% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 41 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Engineering | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 19 June 2023.
All research outputs
#566,794
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#24,260
of 98,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,295
of 397,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#478
of 1,015 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 397,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,015 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 52% of its contemporaries.