↓ Skip to main content

Commentary: A Skeptical View of Experimental Gene Therapy to Block Epileptogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Commentary: A Skeptical View of Experimental Gene Therapy to Block Epileptogenesis
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, April 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.01.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

F Edward Dudek

Abstract

Gene therapy offers exciting new options for treating epileptic seizures, and even for blocking the development of epilepsy (i.e., epileptogenesis) after a brain insult. Although the available studies provide interesting new data, the experiments discussed in this issue also have limitations and raise concerns. The criticisms offered in this commentary center around the nature of the experimental testing (e.g., changes in seizure threshold), the animal models (e.g., kindling), and the measures of epileptogenesis in those animal models with spontaneous seizures (e.g., the latent period after pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus). Another set of criticisms relate to the relative lack of positive controls showing that the actual mechanism purported to be activated via the gene-therapeutic approach has in fact been upregulated in the specific animals that show the hypothetical antiepileptic result. This commentary takes the con side in the debate, to generate constructive criticism to help direct future studies to provide increasingly stronger data to support the view that gene therapy approaches may be useful in the treatment of epilepsy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 21%
Professor 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 37%
Neuroscience 5 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 April 2009.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#1,053
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,776
of 107,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 107,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.