↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer Disease and Implications for Treatment Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, September 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
Genetic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer Disease and Implications for Treatment Strategies
Published in
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11910-014-0499-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Ringman, Alison Goate, Colin L. Masters, Nigel J. Cairns, Adrian Danek, Neill Graff-Radford, Bernardino Ghetti, John C. Morris, Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network

Abstract

Since the original publication describing the illness in 1907, the genetic understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has advanced such that it is now clear that it is a genetically heterogeneous condition, the subtypes of which may not uniformly respond to a given intervention. It is therefore critical to characterize the clinical and preclinical stages of AD subtypes, including the rare autosomal dominant forms caused by known mutations in the PSEN1, APP, and PSEN2 genes that are being studied in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network study and its associated secondary prevention trial. Similar efforts are occurring in an extended Colombian family with a PSEN1 mutation, in APOE ε4 homozygotes, and in Down syndrome. Despite commonalities in the mechanisms producing the AD phenotype, there are also differences that reflect specific genetic origins. Treatment modalities should be chosen and trials designed with these differences in mind. Ideally, the varying pathological cascades involved in the different subtypes of AD should be defined so that both areas of overlap and of distinct differences can be taken into account. At the very least, clinical trials should determine the influence of known genetic factors in post hoc analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Professor 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Neuroscience 21 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 24 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,433,581
of 25,243,120 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#54
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,895
of 253,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 253,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.