↓ Skip to main content

Early-onset dementias: diagnostic and etiological considerations

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/alzrt197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Masellis, Kayla Sherborn, Pedro Rosa 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.

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 164 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 157 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 19 12%
Other 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 44 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 27%
Neuroscience 19 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Psychology 9 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 55 34%
Attention Score in Context

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
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,334
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,881
of 209,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 209,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.