↓ Skip to main content

Axonal Excitability in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Axonal Excitability in ALS

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Axonal Excitability in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Axonal Excitability in ALS
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13311-016-0492-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanna B Park, Matthew C Kiernan, Steve Vucic

Abstract

Axonal excitability testing provides in vivo assessment of axonal ion channel function and membrane potential. Excitability techniques have provided insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of neurodegeneration and clinical features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and related neuromuscular disorders. Specifically, abnormalities of Na(+) and K(+) conductances contribute to development of membrane hyperexcitability in ALS, thereby leading to symptom generation of muscle cramps and fasciculations, in addition to promoting a neurodegenerative cascade via Ca(2+)-mediated processes. Modulation of axonal ion channel function in ALS has resulted in significant symptomatic improvement that has been accompanied by stabilization of axonal excitability parameters. Separately, axonal ion channel dysfunction evolves with disease progression and correlates with survival, thereby serving as a potential therapeutic biomarker in ALS. The present review provides an overview of axonal excitability techniques and the physiological mechanisms underlying membrane excitability, with a focus on the role of axonal ion channel dysfunction in motor neuron disease and related neuromuscular diseases.

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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#1,128
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,504
of 421,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 421,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.