↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a clinical practice-based algorithm for the diagnosis of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias based on NGS identified cases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Validation of a clinical practice-based algorithm for the diagnosis of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias based on NGS identified cases
Published in
Journal of Neurology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00415-016-8112-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martial Mallaret, Mathilde Renaud, Claire Redin, Nathalie Drouot, Jean Muller, Francois Severac, Jean Louis Mandel, Wahiba Hamza, Traki Benhassine, Lamia Ali-Pacha, Meriem Tazir, Alexandra Durr, Marie-Lorraine Monin, Cyril Mignot, Perrine Charles, Lionel Van Maldergem, Ludivine Chamard, Christel Thauvin-Robinet, Vincent Laugel, Lydie Burglen, Patrick Calvas, Marie-Céline Fleury, Christine Tranchant, Mathieu Anheim, Michel Koenig

Abstract

Establishing a molecular diagnosis of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias (ARCA) is challenging due to phenotype and genotype heterogeneity. We report the validation of a previously published clinical practice-based algorithm to diagnose ARCA. Two assessors performed a blind analysis to determine the most probable mutated gene based on comprehensive clinical and paraclinical data, without knowing the molecular diagnosis of 23 patients diagnosed by targeted capture of 57 ataxia genes and high-throughput sequencing coming from a 145 patients series. The correct gene was predicted in 61 and 78 % of the cases by the two assessors, respectively. There was a high inter-rater agreement [K = 0.85 (0.55-0.98) p < 0.001] confirming the algorithm's reproducibility. Phenotyping patients with proper clinical examination, imaging, biochemical investigations and nerve conduction studies remain crucial for the guidance of molecular analysis and to interpret next generation sequencing results. The proposed algorithm should be helpful for diagnosing ARCA in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,800,994
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,540
of 4,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,790
of 298,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#71
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 298,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.