↓ Skip to main content

Current Progress in CNS Imaging of Myotonic Dystrophy

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
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Current Progress in CNS Imaging of Myotonic Dystrophy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00646
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina Minnerop, Carla Gliem, Cornelia Kornblum

Abstract

Neuroimaging in myotonic dystrophies provided a major contribution to the insight into brain involvement which is highly prevalent in these multisystemic disorders. Particular in Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1, conventional MRI first revealed hyperintense white matter lesions, predominantly localized in the anterior temporal lobe. Brain atrophy and ventricle enlargement were additional early findings already described almost 30 years ago. Since then, more advanced and sophisticated imaging methods have been applied in Myotonic Dystrophy Types 1 and 2. Involvement of actually normal appearing white matter and widespread cortical affection in PET studies were key results toward the recognition of diffuse and not only focally localized brain pathology in vivo. Later, structural abnormalities of both, gray and white matter, have been found in both forms of the disorder, albeit more prominent in myotonic dystrophy type 1. In Type 1, a consistent widespread cortical and subcortical involvement of gray and white matter affecting all lobes, brainstem and cerebellum was observed. Spectroscopy studies gave additional evidence of neuronal and glial damage in both types. Central questions regarding the origin and spatiotemporal evolution of the CNS involvement and its relevance for clinical symptoms had already been raised 30 years ago, however are still not answered. Results of correlation analyses between neuroimaging and clinical parameters are diverse and with few exceptions not well reproducible across studies. It may be related to the fact that most of the reported studies included only small numbers of subjects, sometimes even not separating Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 from Type 2. But this heterogeneity may also support the current point of view that the clinical impairments are not simply linked to specific and regionally circumscribed structural or functional brain alterations. It seems more convincing that disturbed networks build the functional and structural substrate of clinical symptoms in these disorders as it is proposed in other neuropsychiatric diseases. Consecutively, structural and functional network analyses may provide additional information regarding the link between brain pathology and clinical symptoms. Up to now, only cross-sectional neuroimaging studies have been published. To analyze the temporal evolution of brain affection, longitudinal studies are urgently needed, and systematic natural history data would be useful to identify potential biomarkers for therapeutic studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Psychology 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 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 30 October 2020.
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 333,774 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 333,774 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.