| Title |
Olfactory Function in SCA10
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Cerebellum, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12311-018-0954-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana Moscovich, Renato Puppi Munhoz, Adriana Moro, Salmo Raskin, Karen McFarland, Tetsuo Ashizawa, Helio A. G. Teive, Laura Silveira-Moriyama |
| Abstract |
Although the main clinical manifestations of spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs) result from damage of the cerebellum, other systems may also be involved. Olfactory deficits have been reported in other types of ataxias, especially in SCA3; however, there are no studies on olfactory deficits in SCA type 10 (SCA10). To analyze olfactory function of SCA10 patients compared with that of SCA3, Parkinson's, and healthy controls. Olfactory identification was tested in three groups of 30 patients (SCA10, SCA3, and Parkinson's disease (PD)) and 44 healthy controls using the Sniffin' Sticks (SS16) test. Mean SS16 score was 11.9 ± 2.9 for the SCA10 group, 12.3 ± 1.9 for the SCA3 group, 6.6 ± 2.8 for the PD group, and 12.1 ± 2.0 for the control group. Mean SS16 score for the SCA10 group was not significantly different from the scores for the SCA3 and control groups but was significantly higher than the score for the PD group (p < 0.001) when adjusted for age, gender, and history of smoking. There was no association between SS16 scores and disease duration in the SCA10 or SCA3 groups or number of repeat expansions. SS16 and Mini Mental State Examination scores were correlated in the three groups: SCA10 group (r = 0.59, p = 0.001), SCA3 group (r = 0.50, p = 0.005), and control group (r = 0.40, p = 0.007). We found no significant olfactory deficits in SCA10 in this large series. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 5 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 46% |
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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#659
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,006
of 331,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 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 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. 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 331,507 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.