↓ Skip to main content

Classification of FTLD-TDP cases into pathological subtypes using antibodies against phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated TDP43

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropathologica Communications, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Classification of FTLD-TDP cases into pathological subtypes using antibodies against phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated TDP43
Published in
Acta Neuropathologica Communications, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2051-5960-1-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel H Tan, Claire E Shepherd, Jillian J Kril, Heather McCann, Andrew McGeachie, Ciara McGinley, Andrew Affleck, Glenda M Halliday

Abstract

Two commercially available TDP43 antibodies (phosphorylated or pTDP43, non-phosphorylated or iTDP43) are currently in use for the neuropathological classification of FTLD-TDP cases into pathological subtypes. To date, no studies have performed direct comparisons between these TDP43 antibodies to determine if they identify the same FTLD-TDP subtypes. The reliability of subtype classification with the use of either of these antibodies has also not been investigated. The present study compares the severity of pathological lesions identified with pTDP43 and iTDP43 in a cohort of 14 FTLD-TDP cases, and assesses the accuracy and inter-observer reliability found with either of these antibodies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 28%
Neuroscience 15 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 11 16%
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 10 July 2013.
All research outputs
#21,512,058
of 26,406,115 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica Communications
#1,479
of 1,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,083
of 207,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica Communications
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,406,115 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 207,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.