↓ Skip to main content

Abnormal Cortical Thickness Is Associated With Deficits in Social Cognition in Patients With Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Abnormal Cortical Thickness Is Associated With Deficits in Social Cognition in Patients With Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, February 2020
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2020.00113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Serra, Guendalina Bianchi, Michela Bruschini, Giovanni Giulietti, Carlotta Di Domenico, Sabrina Bonarota, Antonio Petrucci, Gabriella Silvestri, Alessia Perna, Giovanni Meola, Carlo Caltagirone, Marco Bozzali

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the cortical thickness in myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and its potential association with patients' genetic triplet expansion and social cognition deficits. Methods: Thirty patients with DM1 underwent the Social Cognition Battery Test and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning at 3 T. Twenty-five healthy subjects (HSs) were enrolled in the study to serve as a control group for structural MRI data. To assess changes in cortical thickness in DM1 patients, they were compared to HSs using a t-test model. Correlations were used to assess potential associations between genetic and clinical characteristics and social cognition performances in the patient group. Additionally, multiple regression models were used to explore associations between cortical thickness, CTG triplet expansion size, and scores obtained by DM1 patients on the Social Cognition Battery. Results: DM1 patients showed low performances in several subtests of the Social Cognition Battery. Specifically, they obtained pathological scores at Emotion Attribution Test (i.e., Sadness, Embarrassment, Happiness, and Anger) and at the Social Situations Test (i.e., recognition of normal situation, recognition of aberrant behavior). Significant negative correlations were found between CTG triplet expansion size and Embarrassment, and Severity of Aberrant Behavior. Similarly, a negative correlation was found between patients' MIRS scores and Sadness. DM1 patients compared to HSs showed reduced thickness in the right premotor cortex, angular gyrus, precuneus, and inferior parietal lobule. Significant associations were found between patients' CTG triplet expansion size and thickness in left postcentral gyrus and in the left primary somatosensory cortex, in the posterior cingulate cortex bilaterally, and in the right lingual gyrus. Finally, significant associations were found between cortical thickness and sadness in the superior temporal gyrus, the right precentral gyrus, the right angular gyrus, and the left medial frontal gyrus bilaterally. DM1 patients showed a negative correlation between cortical thickness in the bilateral precuneus and in the left lateral occipital cortex and performance at the Social Situations Test. Finally, DM1 patients showed a negative correlation between cortical thickness in the left precuneus and in the superior frontal gyrus and scores at the Moral Distinction Test. Discussion: The present study shows both cortical thickness changes in DM1 patients compared to controls and significant associations between cortical thickness and patients' social cognition performances. These data confirm the presence of widespread brain damages associated with cognitive impairment in DM1 patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 9 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 May 2021.
All research outputs
#13,093,153
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,907
of 12,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,212
of 359,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#161
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,131 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 59% 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 359,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 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.