↓ Skip to main content

Clinical correlates of grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Clinical correlates of grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis
Published in
BMC Neurology, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-12-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Horakova, Tomas Kalincik, Jana Blahova Dusankova, Ondrej Dolezal

Abstract

Traditionally, multiple sclerosis has been viewed as a disease predominantly affecting white matter. However, this view has lately been subject to numerous changes, as new evidence of anatomical and histological changes as well as of molecular targets within the grey matter has arisen. This advance was driven mainly by novel imaging techniques, however, these have not yet been implemented in routine clinical practice. The changes in the grey matter are related to physical and cognitive disability seen in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Furthermore, damage to several grey matter structures can be associated with impairment of specific functions. Therefore, we conclude that grey matter damage - global and regional - has the potential to become a marker of disease activity, complementary to the currently used magnetic resonance markers (global brain atrophy and T2 hyperintense lesions). Furthermore, it may improve the prediction of the future disease course and response to therapy in individual patients and may also become a reliable additional surrogate marker of treatment effect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
Russia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 106 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Other 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 44%
Psychology 19 16%
Neuroscience 18 16%
Unspecified 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Other 5 4%

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 10 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,638,864
of 12,373,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#300
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,142
of 115,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 115,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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