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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
No Genetic Overlap Between Circulating Iron Levels and Alzheimer’s Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3233/jad-170027 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle K Lupton, Beben Benyamin, Petroula Proitsi, Dale R Nyholt, Manuel A Ferreira, Grant W Montgomery, Andrew C Heath, Pamela A Madden, Sarah E Medland, Scott D Gordon, Simon Lovestone, Magda Tsolaki, Iwona Kloszewska, Hilkka Soininen, Patrizia Mecocci, Bruno Vellas, John F Powell, Ashley I Bush, Margaret J Wright, Nicholas G Martin, John B Whitfield |
| Abstract |
Iron deposition in the brain is a prominent feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Recently, peripheral iron measures have also been shown to be associated with AD status. However, it is not known whether these associations are causal: do elevated or depleted iron levels throughout life have an effect on AD risk? We evaluate the effects of peripheral iron on AD risk using a genetic profile score approach by testing whether variants affecting iron, transferrin, or ferritin levels selected from GWAS meta-analysis of approximately 24,000 individuals are also associated with AD risk in an independent case-control cohort (n∼10,000). Conversely, we test whether AD risk variants from a GWAS meta-analysis of approximately 54,000 account for any variance in iron measures (n∼9,000). We do not identify a genetic relationship, suggesting that peripheral iron is not causal in the initiation of AD pathology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 38% |
| Sweden | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Psychology | 6 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,564,546
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
#1,296
of 7,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,753
of 421,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
#131
of 535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 421,816 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.