| Title |
Epilepsies associated with focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Neuropathologica, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00401-014-1304-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Imad M. Najm, Laura Tassi, Harvey B. Sarnat, Hans Holthausen, Giorgio Lo Russo |
| Abstract |
Focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs) are increasingly recognized as one of the most common causes of pharmaco-resistant epilepsies. FCDs were recently divided into various clinico-pathological subtypes due to distinct imaging, electrophysiological, and outcome characteristics. In this review, we will overview the international consensus classification of FCDs in light of more recently reported clinical, electrical, imaging and functional observations, and will also address areas of ongoing debate. In addition, we will summarize our current knowledge on pathobiology and epileptogenicity of FCDs as well as its underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms. The clinical (electroencephalographic, imaging, and functional) characteristics of major FCD subtypes and their implications on the presurgical evaluation and surgical management will be discussed in light of studies describing these characteristics and postoperative seizure outcomes in patients with medically intractable focal epilepsy due to histopathologically confirmed FCDs. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 43% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
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 31 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,740,286
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#2,167
of 2,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,899
of 228,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#25
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 228,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.