↓ Skip to main content

Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
356 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 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
Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation
Published in
Brain, June 2010
DOI 10.1093/brain/awq123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Ling, Sean S. O’Sullivan, Janice L. Holton, Tamas Revesz, Luke A. Massey, David R. Williams, Dominic C. Paviour, Andrew J. Lees

Abstract

The pathological findings of corticobasal degeneration are associated with several distinct clinical syndromes, and the corticobasal syndrome has been linked with a number of diverse pathologies. We have reviewed all the archival cases in the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders over a 20-year period with either a clinical diagnosis of corticobasal syndrome or pathological diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration in an attempt to identify the main diagnostic pitfalls. Of 19 pathologically confirmed corticobasal degeneration cases, only five had been diagnosed correctly in life (sensitivity=26.3%) and four of these had received an alternative earlier diagnosis. All five of these had a unilateral presentation, clumsy useless limb, limb apraxia and myoclonus, four had cortical sensory impairment and focal limb dystonia and three had an alien limb. Eight cases of corticobasal degeneration had been clinically diagnosed as progressive supranuclear palsy, all of whom had vertical supranuclear palsy and seven had falls within the first 2 years. On the other hand, of 21 cases with a clinical diagnosis of corticobasal syndrome, only five had corticobasal degeneration pathology, giving a positive predictive value of 23.8%; six others had progressive supranuclear palsy pathology, five had Alzheimer's disease and the remaining five had other non-tau pathologies. Corticobasal degeneration can present very commonly with a clinical picture closely resembling classical progressive supranuclear palsy or Richardson's syndrome, and we propose the term corticobasal degeneration-Richardson's syndrome for this subgroup. Cases of corticobasal degeneration-Richardson's syndrome have delayed onset of vertical supranuclear gaze palsy (>3 years after onset of first symptom) and the infrequent occurrence of predominant downgaze abnormalities, both of which can be helpful pointers to their underlying corticobasal degeneration pathology. Fourty-two per cent of corticobasal degeneration cases presented clinically with a progressive supranuclear palsy phenotype and 29% of cases with corticobasal syndrome had underlying progressive supranuclear palsy pathology. In contrast, in the Queen Square Brain Bank archival collection, corticobasal syndrome is a rare clinical presentation of progressive supranuclear palsy occurring in only 6 of the 179 pathologically diagnosed progressive supranuclear palsy cases (3%). Despite these diagnostic difficulties we conclude that corticobasal degeneration is a discrete clinicopathological entity but with a broader clinical spectrum than was originally proposed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Brazil 3 1%
Germany 3 1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 226 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 15%
Other 26 11%
Student > Master 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 59 24%
Unknown 47 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 40%
Neuroscience 37 15%
Psychology 20 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 64 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,078,670
of 24,081,774 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#3,863
of 7,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,432
of 96,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#31
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,081,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 96,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.