↓ Skip to main content

The frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, March 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
295 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
479 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum
Published in
The Lancet, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00737-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R Burrell, Glenda M Halliday, Jillian J Kril, Lars M Ittner, Jürgen Götz, Matthew C Kiernan, John R Hodges

Abstract

Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. Frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease is now recognised as an important dementia syndrome, which presents substantial challenges for diagnosis and management. Frontotemporal dementia, motor neuron disease, and frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease are characterised by overlapping patterns of TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) pathology, while the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) repeat expansion is common across the disease spectrum. Indeed, the C9orf72 repeat expansion provides important clues to disease pathogenesis and suggests potential therapeutic targets. Variable diagnostic criteria identify motor, cognitive, and behavioural deficits, but further refinement is needed to define the clinical syndromes encountered in frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 479 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 473 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 17%
Researcher 74 15%
Student > Master 54 11%
Student > Bachelor 47 10%
Student > Postgraduate 32 7%
Other 101 21%
Unknown 88 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 25%
Neuroscience 105 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 8%
Psychology 39 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 8%
Other 37 8%
Unknown 101 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,310,247
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#9,422
of 42,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,041
of 314,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#170
of 462 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 314,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 462 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 63% of its contemporaries.