↓ Skip to main content

Is Diffusion Tensor Imaging a Good Biomarker for Early Parkinson's Disease?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Is Diffusion Tensor Imaging a Good Biomarker for Early Parkinson's Disease?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00626
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel P. Guimarães, Brunno M. Campos, Thiago J. de Rezende, Luiza Piovesana, Paula C. Azevedo, Augusto C. Amato-Filho, Fernando Cendes, Anelyssa D'Abreu

Abstract

Objectives: To assess white matter abnormalities in Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods: A hundred and thirty-two patients with PD (mean age 60.93 years; average disease duration 7.8 years) and 137 healthy controls (HC; mean age 57.8 years) underwent the same MRI protocol. Patients were assessed by clinical scales and a complete neurological evaluation. We performed a TBSS analysis to compare patients and controls, and we divided patients into early PD, moderate PD, and severe PD and performed an ROI analysis using tractography. Results: With TBSS we found lower FA in patients in corpus callosum, internal and external capsule, corona radiata, thalamic radiation, sagittal stratum, cingulum and superior longitudinal fasciculus. Increased AD was found in the corpus callosum, fornix, corticospinal tract, superior cerebellar peduncle, cerebral peduncle, internal and external capsules, corona radiata, thalamic radiation and sagittal stratum and increased RD were seen in the corpus callosum, internal and external capsules, corona radiata, sagittal stratum, fornix, and cingulum. Regarding the ROIs, a GLM analysis showed abnormalities in all tracts, mainly in the severe group, when compared to HC, mild PD and moderate PD. Conclusions: Since major abnormalities were found in the severe PD group, we believe DTI analysis might not be the best tool to assess early alterations in PD, and probably, functional and other structural analysis might suit this purpose better. However it can be used to differentiate disease stages, and as a surrogate marker to assess disease progression, being an important measure that could be used in clinical trials. HIGHLIGHTS DTI is not the best tool to identify early PDDTI can differentiate disease stagesDTI analysis may be a useful marker for disease progression.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 19%
Psychology 10 16%
Engineering 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 32%
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 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,017,219
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,206
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,808
of 333,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#139
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 12,015 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 333,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.