↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for the multiple hits genetic theory for inherited language impairment: a case study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Evidence for the multiple hits genetic theory for inherited language impairment: a case study
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy M. Centanni, Jordan R. Green, Jenya Iuzzini-Seigel, Christopher W. Bartlett, Tiffany P. Hogan

Abstract

Communication disorders have complex genetic origins, with constellations of relevant gene markers that vary across individuals. Some genetic variants are present in healthy individuals as well as those affected by developmental disorders. Growing evidence suggests that some variants may increase susceptibility to these disorders in the presence of other pathogenic gene mutations. In the current study, we describe eight children with specific language impairment and four of these children had a copy number variant in one of these potential susceptibility regions on chromosome 15. Three of these four children also had variants in other genes previously associated with language impairment. Our data support the theory that 15q11.2 is a susceptibility region for developmental disorders, specifically language impairment.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Linguistics 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,199,279
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#970
of 11,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,034
of 267,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#8
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,809 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 267,013 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.