↓ Skip to main content

Morphometry of corpus callosum in Williams syndrome: shape as an index of neural development

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Structure and Function, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Morphometry of corpus callosum in Williams syndrome: shape as an index of neural development
Published in
Brain Structure and Function, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00429-012-0423-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Sampaio, Sylvain Bouix, Nuno Sousa, Cristiana Vasconcelos, Montse Férnandez, Martha E. Shenton, Óscar F. Gonçalves

Abstract

Brain abnormalities in Williams syndrome (WS) have been consistently reported, despite few studies have devoted attention to connectivity between different brain regions in WS. In this study, we evaluated corpus callosum (CC) morphometry: bending angle, length, thickness and curvature of CC using a new shape analysis method in a group of 17 individuals with WS matched with a typically developing group. We used this multimethod approach because we hypothesized that neurodevelopmental abnormalities might result in both volume changes and structure deformation. Overall, we found reduced absolute CC cross-sectional area and volume in WS (mean CC and subsections). In parallel, we observed group differences regarding CC shape and thickness. Specifically, CC of WS is morphologically different, characterized by a larger bending angle and being more curved in the posterior part. Moreover, although CC in WS is shorter, a larger relative thickness of CC was found in all callosal sections. Finally, groups differed regarding the association between CC measures, age, white matter volume and cognitive performance. In conclusions, abnormal patterns of CC morphology and shape may be implicated in WS cognitive and behavioural phenotype.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 15%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 15 38%
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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#19,702,729
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Brain Structure and Function
#1,236
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,978
of 167,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Structure and Function
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 167,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.