↓ Skip to main content

Measuring compensation in neurodegeneration using MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in neurology., August 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
23 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Measuring compensation in neurodegeneration using MRI
Published in
Current opinion in neurology., August 2017
DOI 10.1097/wco.0000000000000469
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Gregory, Jeffrey D. Long, Sarah J. Tabrizi, Geraint Rees

Abstract

Despite signs of cortical and subcortical loss, patients with prodromal and early-stage neurodegenerative disease are able to perform at a level comparable to the normal population. It is presumed that the onset of compensatory processes, that is changes in brain activation within a function-specific network or in the recruitment of a region outside of the task-network, underlies this maintenance of normal performance. However, in most studies to date, increased brain activity is not correlated with indices of both disease and performance and what appears to be compensation could simply be a symptom of neurodegeneration. MRI studies have explored compensation in neurodegenerative disease, claiming that compensation is evident across a number of disorders, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, but generally always in early stages; after this point, compensation is generally no longer able to operate under the severe burden of disease. However, none of these studies explicitly adopted a particular model of compensation. Thus, we also discuss our recent attempts to operationalize compensation for empirical testing. There is clear evidence of compensatory processes in the early stages of neurodegenerative disease. However, for a more complete understanding, this requires more explicit empirical modelling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 20%
Psychology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,788,430
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in neurology.
#54
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,310
of 327,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in neurology.
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 327,601 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them