↓ Skip to main content

Neuroimaging correlates of pathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease: a case-control study

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Neurology, September 2012
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
355 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
363 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
Neuroimaging correlates of pathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease: a case-control study
Published in
Lancet Neurology, September 2012
DOI 10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70200-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L Whitwell, Dennis W Dickson, Melissa E Murray, Stephen D Weigand, Nirubol Tosakulwong, Matthew L Senjem, David S Knopman, Bradley F Boeve, Joseph E Parisi, Ronald C Petersen, Clifford R Jack, Keith A Josephs

Abstract

Three subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been pathologically defined on the basis of the distribution of neurofibrillary tangles: typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD, and limbic-predominant AD. Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. We aimed to determine whether MRI patterns of atrophy differ between these subtypes and whether structural neuroimaging could be a useful predictor of pathological subtype at autopsy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 346 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 19%
Researcher 58 16%
Student > Master 34 9%
Student > Bachelor 28 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 6%
Other 82 23%
Unknown 68 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 23%
Neuroscience 81 22%
Psychology 27 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 6%
Computer Science 19 5%
Other 43 12%
Unknown 87 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 01 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,698,761
of 25,401,381 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Neurology
#1,073
of 4,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,680
of 187,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Neurology
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 187,240 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 90% of its contemporaries.