↓ Skip to main content

Clinical, radiological, pathological and prognostic aspects of intraventricular oligodendroglioma: comparison with central neurocytoma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Clinical, radiological, pathological and prognostic aspects of intraventricular oligodendroglioma: comparison with central neurocytoma
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11060-017-2490-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiang Xiao, Jun Zhou, Jun Wang, Lei Yang, Chunhong Wang, Yikai Xu, Yuankui Wu

Abstract

Studies comparing intraventricular oligodendroglioma (IVO) and central neurocytoma (CN) in terms of their clinical, radiological and pathological features are scarce. We, therefore, investigated the similarities and differences between these types of tumors to get a better understanding of how they may be more properly diagnosed and treated. The clinical manifestations, CT/MRI findings, pathological characteristics and clinical outcomes of 8 cases of IVOs and 12 cases of CNs were analyzed retrospectively. Both IVO and CN occurred most commonly in young adults and manifested with symptoms of increased intracranial pressure secondary to obstructive hydrocephalus. However, they were radiologically different in location (p = 0.007), diffusion-weighted imaging (p = 0.001), "scalloping" appearance (p = 0.006), flow void sign (p = 0.006) and ventricular wall invasion (p = 0.000). Histologically, significant differences in mitotic count (p = 0.008) and parenchymal infiltration (p = 0.01) were noted. Immunohistochemically, significant differences in the expression of Olig2 (p = 0.000), Syn (p = 0.01) and NeuN (p = 0.000) were observed. In addition, MIB-1 labeling index (p = 0.035) and case fatality rate (p = 0.021) of IVO were much higher than those of CN, while survival rate of IVO was much lower than that of CN (p = 0.028). IVO and CN are similar in onset age and clinical manifestations, but have different imaging and pathological features. Patients with IVOs may have a relatively poorer prognosis compared to those with CNs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,571,001
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#2,263
of 2,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,465
of 315,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,987 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 315,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.