↓ Skip to main content

Early-onset dementias: diagnostic and etiological considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Early-onset dementias: diagnostic and etiological considerations
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/alzrt197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Masellis, Kayla Sherborn, Pedro Neto, Dessa A Sadovnick, Ging-Yuek R Hsiung, Sandra E Black, Sadhana Prasad, Meghan Williams, Serge Gauthier

Abstract

This paper summarizes the body of literature about early-onset dementia (EOD) that led to recommendations from the Fourth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia. A broader differential diagnosis is required for EOD compared with late-onset dementia. Delays in diagnosis are common, and the social impact of EOD requires special care teams. The etiologies underlying EOD syndromes should take into account family history and comorbid diseases, such as cerebrovascular risk factors, that may influence the clinical presentation and age at onset. For example, although many EODs are more likely to have Mendelian genetic and/or metabolic causes, the presence of comorbidities may drive the individual at risk for late-onset dementia to manifest the symptoms at an earlier age, which contributes further to the observed heterogeneity and may confound diagnostic investigation. A personalized medicine approach to diagnosis should therefore be considered depending on the age at onset, clinical presentation, and comorbidities. Genetic counseling and testing as well as specialized biochemical screening are often required, especially in those under the age of 40 and in those with a family history of autosomal dominant or recessive disease. Novel treatments in the drug development pipeline for EOD, such as genetic forms of Alzheimer's disease, should target the specific pathogenic cascade implicated by the mutation or biochemical defect.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 141 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Neuroscience 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 45 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,875,022
of 21,347,849 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#993
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,673
of 185,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 185,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them