↓ Skip to main content

Neuroimaging correlates of pathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease: a case-control study

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Neurology, October 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 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
Neuroimaging correlates of pathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease: a case-control study
Published in
Lancet Neurology, October 2012
DOI 10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70200-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L Whitwell, Dennis W Dickson, Melissa E Murray, Stephen D Weigand, Nirubol Tosakulwong, Matthew L Senjem, David S Knopman, Bradley F Boeve, Joseph E Parisi, Ronald C Petersen, Clifford R Jack, Keith A Josephs

Abstract

Three subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been pathologically defined on the basis of the distribution of neurofibrillary tangles: typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD, and limbic-predominant AD. Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. We aimed to determine whether MRI patterns of atrophy differ between these subtypes and whether structural neuroimaging could be a useful predictor of pathological subtype at autopsy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 192 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 24%
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 8%
Other 64 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 31%
Neuroscience 37 18%
Unspecified 32 15%
Psychology 22 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 10%
Other 32 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,127,360
of 13,763,320 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Neurology
#857
of 2,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,060
of 127,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Neurology
#13
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,763,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 127,873 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.