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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Classifying MCI Subtypes in Community-Dwelling Elderly Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal MRI-Based Biomarkers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00309 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hao Guan, Tao Liu, Jiyang Jiang, Dacheng Tao, Jicong Zhang, Haijun Niu, Wanlin Zhu, Yilong Wang, Jian Cheng, Nicole A. Kochan, Henry Brodaty, Perminder Sachdev, Wei Wen |
| Abstract |
Amnestic MCI (aMCI) and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI) are considered to differ in etiology and outcome. Accurately classifying MCI into meaningful subtypes would enable early intervention with targeted treatment. In this study, we employed structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for MCI subtype classification. This was carried out in a sample of 184 community-dwelling individuals (aged 73-85 years). Cortical surface based measurements were computed from longitudinal and cross-sectional scans. By introducing a feature selection algorithm, we identified a set of discriminative features, and further investigated the temporal patterns of these features. A voting classifier was trained and evaluated via 10 iterations of cross-validation. The best classification accuracies achieved were: 77% (naMCI vs. aMCI), 81% (aMCI vs. cognitively normal (CN)) and 70% (naMCI vs. CN). The best results for differentiating aMCI from naMCI were achieved with baseline features. Hippocampus, amygdala and frontal pole were found to be most discriminative for classifying MCI subtypes. Additionally, we observed the dynamics of classification of several MRI biomarkers. Learning the dynamics of atrophy may aid in the development of better biomarkers, as it may track the progression of cognitive impairment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 29 | 43% |
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 24 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,080,061
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,593
of 4,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,956
of 320,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#28
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 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 4,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 320,708 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 69% of its contemporaries.