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 |
Neurocognitive function in bipolar disorder: a comparison between bipolar I and II disorder and matched controls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-244x-13-165 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erik Pålsson, Clara Figueras, Anette GM Johansson, Carl-Johan Ekman, Björn Hultman, Josefin Östlind, Mikael Landén |
| Abstract |
Cognitive deficits have been documented in patients with bipolar disorder. Further, it has been suggested that the degree and type of cognitive impairment differ between bipolar I and bipolar II disorder, but data is conflicting and remains inconclusive. This study aimed to clarify the suggested differences in cognitive impairment between patients with bipolar I and II disorder in a relatively large, clinically stable sample while controlling for potential confounders. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 50 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 34 | 24% |
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 12 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,755,290
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,630
of 4,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,958
of 199,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#36
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 199,097 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.