↓ Skip to main content

Viral Hypothesis and Antiviral Treatment in Alzheimer’s Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, July 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Viral Hypothesis and Antiviral Treatment in Alzheimer’s Disease
Published in
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11910-018-0863-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. P. Devanand

Abstract

Viruses, particularly herpes simplex virus (HSV), may be a cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The evidence supporting the viral hypothesis suggests that antiviral treatment trials, which have not been conducted, are warranted. HSV1 (oral herpes) and HSV2 (genital herpes) can trigger amyloid aggregation, and their DNA is common in amyloid plaques. HSV1 reactivation is associated with tau hyperphosphorylation and possibly tau propagation. Anti-HSV drugs reduce Aβ and p-tau accumulation in infected mouse brains. Clinically, after the initial oral infection, herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV1) becomes latent in the trigeminal ganglion and recurrent reactivation may produce neuronal damage and AD pathology. Clinical studies show cognitive impairment in HSV seropositive patients, and antiviral drugs show strong efficacy against HSV. An antiviral treatment trial in AD is clearly warranted. A phase II treatment trial with valacyclovir, an anti-HSV drug, recently began with evaluation of clinical and biomarker outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 19%
Neuroscience 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 18 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,719,360
of 24,833,004 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#75
of 983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,532
of 332,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,833,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 332,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.