↓ Skip to main content

Consensus Paper: Neuroimmune Mechanisms of Cerebellar Ataxias

Overview of attention for article published in The Cerebellum, March 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
24 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
Consensus Paper: Neuroimmune Mechanisms of Cerebellar Ataxias
Published in
The Cerebellum, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12311-015-0664-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Mitoma, Keya Adhikari, Daniel Aeschlimann, Partha Chattopadhyay, Marios Hadjivassiliou, Christiane S. Hampe, Jérôme Honnorat, Bastien Joubert, Shinji Kakei, Jongho Lee, Mario Manto, Akiko Matsunaga, Hidehiro Mizusawa, Kazunori Nanri, Priya Shanmugarajah, Makoto Yoneda, Nobuhiro Yuki

Abstract

In the last few years, a lot of publications suggested that disabling cerebellar ataxias may develop through immune-mediated mechanisms. In this consensus paper, we discuss the clinical features of the main described immune-mediated cerebellar ataxias and address their presumed pathogenesis. Immune-mediated cerebellar ataxias include cerebellar ataxia associated with anti-GAD antibodies, the cerebellar type of Hashimoto's encephalopathy, primary autoimmune cerebellar ataxia, gluten ataxia, Miller Fisher syndrome, ataxia associated with systemic lupus erythematosus, and paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration. Humoral mechanisms, cell-mediated immunity, inflammation, and vascular injuries contribute to the cerebellar deficits in immune-mediated cerebellar ataxias.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 166 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 25 15%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 43 25%
Unknown 33 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 38%
Neuroscience 23 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 45 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,393,544
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#61
of 960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,606
of 268,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 960 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 268,843 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.