↓ Skip to main content

Borderlines between Sarcopenia and Mild Late-Onset Muscle Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Borderlines between Sarcopenia and Mild Late-Onset Muscle Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00267
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Palmio, Bjarne Udd

Abstract

Numerous natural or disease-related alterations occur in different tissues of the body with advancing age. Sarcopenia is defined as age-related decrease of muscle mass and strength beginning in mid-adulthood and accelerating in people older than 60 years. Pathophysiology of sarcopenia involves both neural and muscle dependent mechanisms and is enhanced by multiple factors. Aged muscles show loss in fiber number, fiber atrophy, and gradual increase in the number of ragged red fibers and cytochrome c oxidase-negative fibers. Generalized loss of muscle tissue and increased amount of intramuscular fat are seen on muscle imaging. However, the degree of these changes varies greatly between individuals, and the distinction between normal age-related weakening of muscle strength and clinically significant muscle disease is not always obvious. Because some of the genetic myopathies can present at a very old age and be mild in severity, the correct diagnosis is easily missed. We highlight this difficult borderline zone between sarcopenia and muscle disease by two examples: LGMD1D and myotonic dystrophy type 2. Muscle magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool to help differentiate myopathies from sarcopenia and to reach the correct diagnosis also in the elderly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Sports and Recreations 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,413,791
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,937
of 4,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,569
of 252,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#41
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 252,539 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.