↓ Skip to main content

Basal forebrain degeneration precedes and predicts the cortical spread of Alzheimer’s pathology

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
65 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 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
Basal forebrain degeneration precedes and predicts the cortical spread of Alzheimer’s pathology
Published in
Nature Communications, November 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms13249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taylor W. Schmitz, R. Nathan Spreng

Abstract

There is considerable debate whether Alzheimer's disease (AD) originates in basal forebrain or entorhinal cortex. Here we examined whether longitudinal decreases in basal forebrain and entorhinal cortex grey matter volume were interdependent and sequential. In a large cohort of age-matched older adults ranging from cognitively normal to AD, we demonstrate that basal forebrain volume predicts longitudinal entorhinal degeneration. Models of parallel degeneration or entorhinal origin received negligible support. We then integrated volumetric measures with an amyloid biomarker sensitive to pre-symptomatic AD pathology. Comparison between cognitively matched normal adult subgroups, delineated according to the amyloid biomarker, revealed abnormal degeneration in basal forebrain, but not entorhinal cortex. Abnormal degeneration in both basal forebrain and entorhinal cortex was only observed among prodromal (mildly amnestic) individuals. We provide evidence that basal forebrain pathology precedes and predicts both entorhinal pathology and memory impairment, challenging the widely held belief that AD has a cortical origin.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 271 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 24%
Researcher 44 16%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 48 17%
Unknown 39 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 87 31%
Psychology 33 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 61 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 174. 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 19 May 2018.
All research outputs
#125,738
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#1,855
of 34,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,235
of 300,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#205
of 2,765 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 300,416 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,765 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 92% of its contemporaries.