↓ Skip to main content

Genetics of vascular dementia – review from the ICVD working group

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Genetics of vascular dementia – review from the ICVD working group
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0813-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Arfan Ikram, Anna Bersano, Raquel Manso-Calderón, Jian-Ping Jia, Helena Schmidt, Lefkos Middleton, Benedetta Nacmias, Saima Siddiqi, Hieab H.H. Adams

Abstract

Vascular dementia is a common disorder resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. Determining the extent to which genes play a role in disease susceptibility and their pathophysiological mechanisms could improve our understanding of vascular dementia, leading to a potential translation of this knowledge to clinical practice. In this review, we discuss what is currently known about the genetics of vascular dementia. The identification of causal genes remains limited to monogenic forms of the disease, with findings for sporadic vascular dementia being less robust. However, progress in genetic research on associated phenotypes, such as cerebral small vessel disease, Alzheimer's disease, and stroke, have the potential to inform on the genetics of vascular dementia. We conclude by providing an overview of future developments in the field and how such work could impact patients and clinicians. The genetic background of vascular dementia is well established for monogenic disorders, but remains relatively obscure for the sporadic form. More work is needed for providing robust findings that might eventually lead to clinical translation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Professor 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 30%
Neuroscience 21 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 34 31%

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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,841,643
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,710
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,936
of 311,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#37
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 311,212 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 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.