| Title |
Bilateral temporal lobe disease: looking beyond herpes encephalitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-016-0481-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ayelet Eran, Adina Hodes, Izlem Izbudak |
| Abstract |
The temporal lobes have unique architecture, and functionality that makes them vulnerable to certain disease processes. Patients presenting with bilateral temporal lobe disease are often confused and have altered consciousness, and are therefore unable to provide cogent histories. For these reasons, imaging plays an important role in their workup and management. Disease entities causing bilateral temporal lobe involvement can be infectious, metabolic, neoplastic, and degenerative aetiologies, as well as trauma and cerebrovascular events. We will first describe the structural and functional anatomy of the temporal lobes and explain the mechanisms that underlie bilateral temporal lobe disease, and then show and discuss the different disease entities and differential diagnosis. • Bilateral temporal lobe disease is a unique pattern with specific differential diagnosis. • Patients presenting with bilateral temporal lobe disease are often confused. • Radiologists should be familar with the variety of disease processes that cause bitemporal disease. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 60% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
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 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#19,015,393
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#797
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,321
of 303,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 303,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.