↓ Skip to main content

Distinguishing neurocognitive deficits in adult patients with NP-C from early onset Alzheimer’s dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Distinguishing neurocognitive deficits in adult patients with NP-C from early onset Alzheimer’s dementia
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0833-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Johnen, Matthias Pawlowski, Thomas Duning

Abstract

Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) is a rare, progressive neurodegenerative disease caused by mutations in the NPC1 or the NPC2 gene. Neurocognitive deficits are common in NP-C, particularly in patients with the adolescent/adult-onset form. As a disease-specific therapy is available, it is important to distinguish clinically between the cognitive profiles in NP-C and primary dementia (e.g., early Alzheimer's disease; eAD). In a prospective observational study, we directly compared the neurocognitive profiles of patients with confirmed NP-C (n = 7) and eAD (n = 15). All patients underwent neurocognitive assessment using dementia screening tests (mini-mental status examination [MMSE] and frontal assessment battery [FAB]) and an extensive battery of tests assessing verbal memory, visuoconstructive abilities, visual memory, executive functions and verbal fluency. Overall cognitive impairment (MMSE) was significantly greater in eAD vs. NP-C (p = 0.010). The frequency of patients classified as cognitively 'impaired' was also significantly greater in eAD vs. NP-C (p = 0.025). Patients with NP-C showed relatively preserved verbal memory, but frequent impairment in visual memory, visuoconstruction, executive functions and in particular, verbal fluency. In the eAD group, a wider profile of more frequent and more severe neurocognitive deficits was seen, primarily featuring severe verbal and visual memory deficits along with major executive impairment. Delayed verbal memory recall was a particularly strong distinguishing factor between the two groups. A combination of detailed yet easy-to-apply neurocognitive tests assessing verbal memory, executive functions and verbal fluency may help distinguish NP-C cases from those with primary dementia due to eAD.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 21 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,871,768
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#193
of 2,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,040
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#4
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 329,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.