↓ Skip to main content

The endogenous and reactive depression subtypes revisited: integrative animal and human studies implicate multiple distinct molecular mechanisms underlying major depressive disorder

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2014
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
The endogenous and reactive depression subtypes revisited: integrative animal and human studies implicate multiple distinct molecular mechanisms underlying major depressive disorder
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-12-73
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim Malki, Robert Keers, Maria Grazia Tosto, Anbarasu Lourdusamy, Lucia Carboni, Enrico Domenici, Rudolf Uher, Peter McGuffin, Leonard C Schalkwyk

Abstract

Traditional diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD) suggested that the presence or absence of stress prior to onset results in either 'reactive' or 'endogenous' subtypes of the disorder, respectively. Several lines of research suggest that the biological underpinnings of 'reactive' or 'endogenous' subtypes may also differ, resulting in differential response to treatment. We investigated this hypothesis by comparing the gene-expression profiles of three animal models of 'reactive' and 'endogenous' depression. We then translated these findings to clinical samples using a human post-mortem mRNA study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 24 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 16%
Psychology 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 26 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,624,576
of 21,353,399 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,125
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,538
of 204,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,353,399 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 204,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
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