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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Expanding the Repertoire of Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease: Targeted and Non-targeted Approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2015.00256 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas Galasko |
| Abstract |
The first biofluid markers developed for Alzheimer's disease (AD) used targeted approaches for discovery. These initial biomarkers were directed at key protein constituents of the hallmark brain lesions in AD. Biomarkers for plaques targeted the amyloid beta protein (Aβ) and for tangles, the microtubule-associated protein tau. Cerebrospinal fluid levels of Aβ and tau have excellent diagnostic utility and can be used to monitor aspects of therapeutic development. Recent research has extended our current concepts of AD, which now include a slow buildup of pathology during a long pre-symptomatic period, a complex cascade of pathological pathways in the brain that may accelerate once symptoms develop, the potential of aggregated proteins to spread across brain pathways, and interactions with vascular and other age-associated brain pathologies. There are many potential roles for biomarkers within this landscape. A more diverse set of biomarkers would provide a better picture of the staging and state of pathological events in the brain across the stages of AD. The aim of this review is to focus on methods of biomarker discovery that may help to expand the currently accepted biomarkers. Opportunities and approaches for targeted and non-targeted (or -omic) biomarker discovery are highlighted, with examples from recent studies. How biomarker discoveries can be developed and integrated to become useful tools in diagnostic and therapeutic efforts is discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 24% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,181,804
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,439
of 11,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,492
of 390,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#23
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 390,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 55% of its contemporaries.