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 |
Simulated surgical-type cerebral biopsies from post-mortem brains allows accurate neuropathological diagnoses in the majority of neurodegenerative disease groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Neuropathologica Communications, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2051-5960-1-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew King, Satomi Maekawa, Istvan Bodi, Claire Troakes, Olimpia Curran, Keyoumars Ashkan, Safa Al-Sarraj |
| Abstract |
In theory, cerebral biopsies could provide the diagnosis in a significant proportion of patients with neurodegenerative diseases, however, there are considerable ethical barriers. Previous series of cerebral biopsies have shown variable diagnostic accuracy but have understandably suffered because of lack of post-mortem tissue with which to compare the diagnosis. To determine the accuracy of such biopsies in neurodegenerative disease we took small biopsy-sized samples of predominantly fresh post-mortem brain tissue from frontal and temporal lobes in 62 cases. These were processed as for a biopsy and stained for H&E, p62, tau, Aβ, α-synuclein, and TDP-43. The sections were assessed blind by 3 neuropathologists and the results compared with the final post-mortem diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,260,404
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica Communications
#736
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,488
of 198,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica Communications
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 198,419 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.