↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for Treatment in Alexander Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, October 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 (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Strategies for Treatment in Alexander Disease
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, October 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.nurt.2010.05.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albee Messing, Christine M. LaPash Daniels, Tracy L. Hagemann

Abstract

Alexander disease is a rare and generally fatal disorder of the CNS, originally classified among the leukodystrophies because of the prominent myelin deficits found in young patients. The most common form of this disease affects infants, who often have profound mental retardation and a variety of developmental delays, but later onset forms also occur, sometimes with little or no white matter pathology at all. The pathological hallmark of Alexander disease is the inclusion body, known as Rosenthal fiber, within the cell bodies and processes of astrocytes. Recent genetic studies identified heterozygous missense mutations in glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), the major intermediate filament protein in astrocytes, as the cause of nearly all cases of Alexander disease. These studies have transformed our view of this disorder and opened new directions for investigation and clinical practice, particularly with respect to diagnosis. Mechanisms by which expression of mutant forms of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) lead to the pleiotropic manifestations of disease (afflicting cell types beyond the ones expressing the mutant gene) are slowly coming into focus. Ideas are beginning to emerge that suggest several compelling therapeutic targets for interventions that might slow or arrest the evolution of the disease. This review will outline the rationale for pursuing these strategies, and highlight some of the critical issues that must be addressed in the planning of future clinical trials.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 5%
Japan 1 2%
France 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 20%
Neuroscience 11 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 24%
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 17 October 2023.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#570
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,472
of 108,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 108,272 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 50% of its contemporaries.