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 |
Prevalence of Genetic Disorders and GLUT1 Deficiency in a Ketogenic Diet Clinic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1017/cjn.2017.246 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stacy Hewson, Ledia Brunga, Matilde Fernandez Ojeda, Elizabeth Imhof, Jaina Patel, Maria Zak, Elizabeth J. Donner, Jeff Kobayashi, Gajja S. Salomons, Saadet Mercimek-Andrews |
| Abstract |
Between July of 2012 and December of 2014, 39 patients were enrolled prospectively to investigate the prevalence of glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) deficiency in a ketogenic diet clinic. None of them had GLUT1 deficiency. All patients seen in the same clinic within the same period were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 18 of these 85 patients had a genetic diagnosis, including GLUT1 deficiency, pathogenic copy number variants, congenital disorder of glycosylation, neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type II, mitochondrial disorders, tuberous sclerosis, lissencephaly, and SCN1A-, SCN8A-, and STXBP1-associated epileptic encephalopathies. The prevalence of genetic diagnoses was 21% and prevalence of GLUT1 deficiency was 2.4% in our retrospective cohort study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences
#1,043
of 1,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,400
of 318,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 318,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.