↓ Skip to main content

Fluid biomarkers for diagnosing dementia: rationale and the Canadian Consensus on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia recommendations for Canadian physicians

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Fluid biomarkers for diagnosing dementia: rationale and the Canadian Consensus on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia recommendations for Canadian physicians
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/alzrt223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Rosa-Neto, Ging-Yuek Robin Hsiung, Mario Masellis

Abstract

Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. The role of fluid biomarkers in patient care is a rapidly evolving field. Here, we provide a review and recommendations regarding the use of fluid biomarkers in clinical practice as discussed at the Fourth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD4) convened in Montreal, 4 to 5 May 2012. At present, there is no consensus regarding the optimal methodology for conducting quantification of plasma amyloid-beta (Aβ) peptides. In addition, since there is insufficient evidence supporting clinical applications for plasma Aβ-peptide measures, the CCCDTD4 does not recommended plasma biomarkers either for primary care or for specialists. Evidence for CSF Aβ1-42, total tau and phosphorylated tau in the diagnosis of Alzheimer pathology is much stronger, and can be considered at the tertiary care level for selected cases to improve diagnostic certainty, particularly in those cases presenting atypical clinical features.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Professor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 16%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Computer Science 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,397
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,122
of 317,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 317,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.