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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Targeting Neural Endophenotypes of Eating Disorders with Non-invasive Brain Stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2016.00030 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katharine A. Dunlop, Blake Woodside, Jonathan Downar |
| Abstract |
The term "eating disorders" (ED) encompasses a wide variety of disordered eating and compensatory behaviors, and so the term is associated with considerable clinical and phenotypic heterogeneity. This heterogeneity makes optimizing treatment techniques difficult. One class of treatments is non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). NIBS, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), are accessible forms of neuromodulation that alter the cortical excitability of a target brain region. It is crucial for NIBS to be successful that the target is well selected for the patient population in question. Targets may best be selected by stepping back from conventional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria to identify neural substrates of more basic phenotypes, including behavior related to rewards and punishment, cognitive control, and social processes. These phenotypic dimensions have been recently laid out by the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative. Consequently, this review is intended to identify potential dimensions as outlined by the RDoC and the underlying behavioral and neurobiological targets associated with ED. This review will also identify candidate targets for NIBS based on these dimensions and review the available literature on rTMS and tDCS in ED. This review systematically reviews abnormal neural circuitry in ED within the RDoC framework, and also systematically reviews the available literature investigating NIBS as a treatment for ED. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 42 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 37 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 55 | 41% |
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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,535,626
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,782
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,714
of 311,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#82
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 311,612 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 176 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 52% of its contemporaries.