↓ Skip to main content

Venocentric Lesions: An MRI Marker of MS?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Venocentric Lesions: An MRI Marker of MS?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2013.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew P. Quinn, Marcelo Kremenchutzky, Ravi S. Menon

Abstract

From the earliest descriptions of multiple sclerosis (MS), the venocentric characteristic of plaques was noted. Recently, numerous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have proposed this finding as a prospective biomarker for MS, which might aid in differentiating MS from other diseases with similar MRI findings. High-field MRI studies have shown that penetrating veins can be detected in most MS lesions using T2(∗) weighted or susceptibility-weighted imaging. Future studies must address the feasibility of imaging such veins in a clinically practical context. The specificity of this biomarker has been studied only in a limited capacity. Results in microangiopathic lesions are conflicting, whereas asymptomatic white matter hyperintensities as well as lesions of neuromyelitis optica are less frequently venocentric compared to MS plaques. Prospective studies have shown that the presence of venocentric lesions at an early clinical presentation is highly predictive of future MS diagnosis. This is very promising, but work remains to be done to confirm or exclude lesions of common MS mimics, such as acute disseminate encephalomyelitis, as venocentric. A number of technical challenges must be addressed before the introduction of this technique as a complementary tool in current diagnostic procedures.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Austria 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 5 17%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Neuroscience 5 17%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 23%
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 07 August 2013.
All research outputs
#14,755,656
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,051
of 11,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,325
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#65
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 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 11,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 280,752 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 210 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 64% of its contemporaries.