↓ Skip to main content

Brain tau deposition linked to systemic causes of death in normal elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Neurobiology of Aging, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Brain tau deposition linked to systemic causes of death in normal elderly
Published in
Neurobiology of Aging, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.11.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith A. Josephs, Nirubol Tosakulwong, Stephen D. Weigand, Melissa E. Murray, Jennifer L. Whitwell, Joseph E. Parisi, Dennis W. Dickson, Ronald C. Petersen

Abstract

The relationship between causes of death and 4 major neurodegenerative brain proteins (beta-amyloid, tau, alpha-synuclein, and the TAR DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43) were assessed in 94 cognitively normal elderly participants that died without a neurodegenerative disease. There was an association between tau and causes of death (p = 0.01). Tau in the brain was associated with a reduced likelihood of dying from systemic cancers (p = 0.046), and with an increased likelihood of dying from pulmonary (p = 0.03) and gastrointestinal (p = 0.049) diseases. There were no associations between beta-amyloid, alpha-synuclein, or TDP-43 and causes of death. Tau deposition in the brain may have a relationship with systemic causes of death, including cancer, in the cognitively normal elderly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
United States 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Psychology 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,274,811
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neurobiology of Aging
#1,077
of 4,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,830
of 415,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurobiology of Aging
#23
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 415,348 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 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 64% of its contemporaries.