| Title |
Monitoring Progressive Multiple Sclerosis with Novel Imaging Techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurology and Therapy, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40120-018-0103-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Petracca, Monica Margoni, Giulia Bommarito, Matilde Inglese |
| Abstract |
Imaging markers for monitoring disease progression in progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) are scarce, thereby limiting the possibility to monitor disease evolution and to test effective treatments in clinical trials. Advanced imaging techniques that have the advantage of metrics with increased sensitivity to short-term tissue changes and increased specificity to the structural abnormalities characteristic of PMS have recently been applied in clinical trials of PMS. In this review, we (1) provide an overview of the pathological features of PMS, (2) summarize the findings of research and clinical trials conducted in PMS which have applied conventional and advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques and (3) discuss recent advancements and future perspectives in monitoring PMS with imaging techniques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 December 2018.
All research outputs
#14,628,563
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Neurology and Therapy
#247
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,117
of 343,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology and Therapy
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 343,963 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.