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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Atypical multisensory integration in Niemann-Pick type C disease – towards potential biomarkers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13023-014-0149-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gizely N Andrade, Sophie Molholm, John S Butler, Alice B Brandwein, Steven U Walkley, John J Foxe |
| Abstract |
Niemann-Pick type C (NPC) is an autosomal recessive disease in which cholesterol and glycosphingolipids accumulate in lysosomes due to aberrant cell-transport mechanisms. It is characterized by progressive and ultimately terminal neurological disease, but both pre-clinical studies and direct human trials are underway to test the safety and efficacy of cholesterol clearing compounds, with good success already observed in animal models. Key to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in patients, however, is the development of objective neurobiological outcome measures. Multisensory integration mechanisms present as an excellent candidate since they necessarily rely on the fidelity of long-range neural connections between the respective sensory cortices (e.g. the auditory and visual systems). |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,608,190
of 23,659,844 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,376
of 2,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,460
of 251,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#21
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,659,844 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 251,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.