↓ Skip to main content

Imaging the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder - from localist models to circuit-based analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Imaging the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder - from localist models to circuit-based analysis
Published in
Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-5380-4-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael T Treadway, Diego A Pizzagalli

Abstract

The neuroimaging literature of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) has grown substantially over the last several decades, facilitating great advances in the identification of specific brain regions, neurotransmitter systems and networks associated with depressive illness. Despite this progress, fundamental questions remain about the pathophysiology and etiology of MDD. More importantly, this body of work has yet to directly influence clinical practice. It has long been a goal for the fields of clinical psychology and psychiatry to have a means of making objective diagnoses of mental disorders. Frustratingly little movement has been achieved on this front, however, and the 'gold-standard' of diagnostic validity and reliability remains expert consensus. In light of this challenge, the focus of the current review is to provide a critical summary of key findings from different neuroimaging approaches in MDD research, including structural, functional and neurochemical imaging studies. Following this summary, we discuss some of the current conceptual obstacles to better understanding the pathophysiology of depression, and conclude with recommendations for future neuroimaging research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 160 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 21%
Researcher 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Neuroscience 23 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 29 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,229,289
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders
#38
of 66 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,600
of 222,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 66 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 222,587 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them