| Title |
PET brain imaging in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-016-3602-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaime H. Vera, Basil Ridha, Yvonne Gilleece, Aliza Amlani, Patrick Thorburn, Sabina Dizdarevic |
| Abstract |
Effective combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has lead to a significant reduction in the prevalence and incidence of central nervous system (CNS) HIV-associated brain disease, particularly CNS opportunistic infections and HIV encephalitis. Despite this, cognitive deficits in people living with HIV, also known as HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) have become more prevalent in recent years. The pathogenesis of HAND is likely to be multifactorial, however recent evidence suggests that brain microglial activation is the most likely pathogenic mechanism. Recent developments in positron emission tomography (PET) brain neuroimaging using novel brain radioligands targeting a variety of physiological changes in the brains of HIV-positive individuals have improved our understanding of the mechanisms associated with the development of HAND. This review will highlight recent PET brain neuroimaging studies in the cART era, focusing on physiological and neurochemical changes associated with HAND in people living with HIV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Egypt | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,882,733
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#1,782
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,338
of 425,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#18
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 425,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 55% of its contemporaries.