↓ Skip to main content

FSHD type 2 and Bosma arhinia microphthalmia syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Neurology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
FSHD type 2 and Bosma arhinia microphthalmia syndrome
Published in
Neurology, July 2018
DOI 10.1212/wnl.0000000000005958
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine whether congenital arhinia/Bosma arhinia microphthalmia syndrome (BAMS) and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy type 2 (FSHD2), 2 seemingly unrelated disorders both caused by heterozygous pathogenic missense variants in the SMCHD1 gene, might represent different ends of a broad single phenotypic spectrum associated with SMCHD1 dysfunction. We examined and/or interviewed 14 patients with FSHD2 and 4 unaffected family members with N-terminal SMCHD1 pathogenic missense variants to identify BAMS subphenotypes. None of the patients with FSHD2 or family members demonstrated any congenital defects or dysmorphic features commonly found in patients with BAMS. One patient became anosmic after nasal surgery and one patient was hyposmic; one man was infertile (unknown cause) but reported normal pubertal development. These data suggest that arhinia/BAMS and FSHD2 do not represent one phenotypic spectrum and that SMCHD1 pathogenic variants by themselves are insufficient to cause either of the 2 disorders. More likely, both arhinia/BAMS and FSHD2 are caused by complex oligogenic or multifactorial mechanisms that only partially overlap at the level of SMCHD1.

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 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 7 24%
Researcher 6 21%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,139,861
of 27,655,936 outputs
Outputs from Neurology
#10,496
of 22,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,741
of 345,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology
#113
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,655,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 345,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.