↓ Skip to main content

The Case for Abandoning Therapeutic Chelation of Copper Ions in Alzheimer's Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
The Case for Abandoning Therapeutic Chelation of Copper Ions in Alzheimer's Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00317
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon C. Drew

Abstract

The "therapeutic chelation" approach to treating Alzheimer's disease (AD) evolved from the metals hypothesis, with the premise that small molecules can be designed to prevent transition metal-induced amyloid deposition and oxidative stress within the AD brain. Over more than 20 years, countless in vitro studies have been devoted to characterizing metal binding, its effect on Aβ aggregation, ROS production, and in vitro toxicity. Despite a lack of evidence for any clinical benefit, the conjecture that therapeutic chelation is an effective approach for treating AD remains widespread. Here, the author plays the devil's advocate, questioning the experimental evidence, the dogma, and the value of therapeutic chelation, with a major focus on copper ions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 21 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,344,341
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,533
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,885
of 331,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#31
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 331,648 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.