↓ Skip to main content

Atrophy in the Thalamus But Not Cerebellum Is Specific for C9orf72 FTD and ALS Patients – An Atlas-Based Volumetric MRI Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Atrophy in the Thalamus But Not Cerebellum Is Specific for C9orf72 FTD and ALS Patients – An Atlas-Based Volumetric MRI Study
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja Schönecker, Christiane Neuhofer, Markus Otto, Albert Ludolph, Jan Kassubek, Bernhard Landwehrmeyer, Sarah Anderl-Straub, Elisa Semler, Janine Diehl-Schmid, Catharina Prix, Christian Vollmar, Juan Fortea, Deutsches FTLD-Konsortium, Hans-Jürgen Huppertz, Thomas Arzberger, Dieter Edbauer, Berend Feddersen, Marianne Dieterich, Matthias L. Schroeter, Alexander E. Volk, Klaus Fließbach, Anja Schneider, Johannes Kornhuber, Manuel Maler, Johannes Prudlo, Holger Jahn, Tobias Boeckh-Behrens, Adrian Danek, Thomas Klopstock, Johannes Levin, Carola Roßmeier, Franziska Albrecht, Katharina Schümberg, Sandrine Bisenius

Abstract

Background: The neuropathology of patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) due to a C9orf72 mutation is characterized by two distinct types of characteristic protein depositions containing either TDP-43 or so-called dipeptide repeat proteins that extend beyond frontal and temporal regions. Thalamus and cerebellum seem to be preferentially affected by the dipeptide repeat pathology unique to C9orf72 mutation carriers. Objective: This study aimed to determine if mutation carriers showed an enhanced degree of thalamic and cerebellar atrophy compared to sporadic patients or healthy controls. Methods: Atlas-based volumetry was performed in 13 affected C9orf72 FTD, ALS and FTD/ALS patients, 45 sporadic FTD and FTD/ALS patients and 19 healthy controls. Volumes and laterality indices showing significant differences between mutation carriers and sporadic patients were subjected to binary logistic regression to determine the best predictor of mutation carrier status. Results: Compared to sporadic patients, mutation carriers showed a significant volume reduction of the thalamus, which was most striking in the occipital, temporal and prefrontal subregion of the thalamus. Disease severity measured by mini mental status examination (MMSE) and FTD modified Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (FTD-CDR-SOB) significantly correlated with volume reduction in the aforementioned thalamic subregions. No significant atrophy of cerebellar regions could be detected. A logistic regression model using the volume of the prefrontal and the laterality index of the occipital subregion of the thalamus as predictor variables resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 while a model using overall thalamic volume still resulted in an AUC of 0.82. Conclusion: Our data show that thalamic atrophy in C9orf72 mutation carriers goes beyond the expected atrophy in the prefrontal and temporal subregion and is in good agreement with the cortical atrophy pattern described in C9orf72 mutation carriers, indicating a retrograde degeneration of functionally connected regions. Clinical relevance of the detected thalamic atrophy is illustrated by a correlation with disease severity. Furthermore, the findings suggest MRI volumetry of the thalamus to be of high predictive value in differentiating C9orf72 mutation carriers from patients with sporadic FTD.

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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Psychology 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 24 30%
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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,660,064
of 23,884,093 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,644
of 5,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,250
of 336,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#94
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,884,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 336,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.