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 |
Maladaptive Synaptic Plasticity in L-DOPA-Induced Dyskinesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncir.2016.00105 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qiang Wang, Wangming Zhang |
| Abstract |
The emergence of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia (LID) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) could be due to maladaptive plasticity of corticostriatal synapses in response to L-DOPA treatment. A series of recent studies has revealed that LID is associated with marked morphological plasticity of striatal dendritic spines, particularly cell type-specific structural plasticity of medium spiny neurons (MSNs) in the striatum. In addition, evidence demonstrating the occurrence of plastic adaptations, including aberrant morphological and functional features, in multiple components of cortico-basal ganglionic circuitry, such as primary motor cortex (M1) and basal ganglia (BG) output nuclei. These adaptations have been implicated in the pathophysiology of LID. Here, we briefly review recent studies that have addressed maladaptive plastic changes within the cortico-BG loop in dyskinetic animal models of PD and patients with PD. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 13 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,376,559
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#1,033
of 1,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#355,333
of 420,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#30
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 420,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.