↓ Skip to main content

The cerebellar cognitive affective/Schmahmann syndrome scale.

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, December 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
316 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 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
The cerebellar cognitive affective/Schmahmann syndrome scale.
Published in
Brain, December 2017
DOI 10.1093/brain/awx317
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franziska Hoche, Xavier Guell, Mark G Vangel, Janet C Sherman, Jeremy D Schmahmann

Abstract

Cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS; Schmahmann's syndrome) is characterized by deficits in executive function, linguistic processing, spatial cognition, and affect regulation. Diagnosis currently relies on detailed neuropsychological testing. The aim of this study was to develop an office or bedside cognitive screen to help identify CCAS in cerebellar patients. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether available brief tests of mental function detect cognitive impairment in cerebellar patients, whether cognitive performance is different in patients with isolated cerebellar lesions versus complex cerebrocerebellar pathology, and whether there are cognitive deficits that should raise red flags about extra-cerebellar pathology. Comprehensive standard neuropsychological tests, experimental measures and clinical rating scales were administered to 77 patients with cerebellar disease-36 isolated cerebellar degeneration or injury, and 41 complex cerebrocerebellar pathology-and to healthy matched controls. Tests that differentiated patients from controls were used to develop a screening instrument that includes the cardinal elements of CCAS. We validated this new scale in a new cohort of 39 cerebellar patients and 55 healthy controls. We confirm the defining features of CCAS using neuropsychological measures. Deficits in executive function were most pronounced for working memory, mental flexibility, and abstract reasoning. Language deficits included verb for noun generation and phonemic > semantic fluency. Visual spatial function was degraded in performance and interpretation of visual stimuli. Neuropsychiatric features included impairments in attentional control, emotional control, psychosis spectrum disorders and social skill set. From these results, we derived a 10-item scale providing total raw score, cut-offs for each test, and pass/fail criteria that determined 'possible' (one test failed), 'probable' (two tests failed), and 'definite' CCAS (three tests failed). When applied to the exploratory cohort, and administered to the validation cohort, the CCAS/Schmahmann scale identified sensitivity and selectivity, respectively as possible exploratory cohort: 85%/74%, validation cohort: 95%/78%; probable exploratory cohort: 58%/94%, validation cohort: 82%/93%; and definite exploratory cohort: 48%/100%, validation cohort: 46%/100%. In patients in the exploratory cohort, Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were within normal range. Complex cerebrocerebellar disease patients were impaired on similarities in comparison to isolated cerebellar disease. Inability to recall words from multiple choice occurred only in patients with extra-cerebellar disease. The CCAS/Schmahmann syndrome scale is useful for expedited clinical assessment of CCAS in patients with cerebellar disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 418 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 14%
Researcher 53 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 7%
Other 27 6%
Other 85 20%
Unknown 123 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 76 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 74 18%
Psychology 50 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 4%
Computer Science 7 2%
Other 41 10%
Unknown 154 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,306,077
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#1,379
of 7,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,173
of 445,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#29
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 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 7,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 445,004 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.