↓ Skip to main content

Meningeal defects and focal cortical dysplasia: an unrecognized relationship? Illustrative case

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons, September 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
2 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.
Article details
Title
Meningeal defects and focal cortical dysplasia: an unrecognized relationship? Illustrative case
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons, September 2022
DOI 10.3171/case22112
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs) are a heterogenous cluster of histopathologic entities classically associated with medically refractory epilepsy. Because there is substantial histopathologic variation among different types of FCD, there are likely multiple pathogenic mechanisms leading to these disorders. The meninges are known to play a role in cortical development, and disruption of meningeal-derived signaling pathways has been shown to impact neurodevelopment. To our knowledge, there has not yet been an investigation into whether genetic pathways regulating meningeal development may be involved in the development of FCD. The authors reported a patient with refractory epilepsy and evidence of FCD on imaging who received surgical intervention and was found to have an unusual dural anomaly overlying a region of type Ic FCD. To the authors' knowledge, this was the first report describing a lesion of this nature in the context of FCD. The dural anomaly exhibited by the patient presented what could be a potentially novel pathogenic mechanism of FCD. Resection of the cortical tissue underlying the dural anomaly resulted in improvement in seizure control. Although the pathogenesis is unclear, this case highlighted the importance of further investigation into the developmental origins of FCD, which may help elucidate whether a connection between meningeal development and FCD exists.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 November 2022.
All research outputs
#18,557,714
of 27,749,472 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons
#241
of 419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,237
of 441,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,749,472 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 419 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 441,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.