↓ Skip to main content

An infant with hyperalertness, hyperkinesis, and failure to thrive: a rare diencephalic syndrome due to hypothalamic anaplastic astrocytoma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
An infant with hyperalertness, hyperkinesis, and failure to thrive: a rare diencephalic syndrome due to hypothalamic anaplastic astrocytoma
Published in
BMC Cancer, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1626-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessia Stival, Maurizio Lucchesi, Silvia Farina, Anna Maria Buccoliero, Francesca Castiglione, Lorenzo Genitori, Maurizio de Martino, Iacopo Sardi

Abstract

Diencephalic Syndrome is a rare clinical condition of failure to thrive despite a normal caloric intake, hyperalertness, hyperkinesis, and euphoria usually associated with low-grade hypothalamic astrocytomas. We reported an unusual case of diencephalic cachexia due to hypothalamic anaplastic astrocytoma (WHO-grade III). Baseline endocrine function evaluation was performed in this patient before surgery. After histological diagnosis, he enrolled to a chemotherapy program with sequential high-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell rescue. The last MRI evaluation showed a good response. The patient is still alive with good visual function 21 months after starting chemotherapy. Diencephalic cachexia can rarely be due to high-grade hypothalamic astrocytoma. We suggest that a nutritional support with chemotherapy given to high doses without radiotherapy could be an effective strategy for treatment of a poor-prognosis disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 23%
Student > Master 5 17%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%

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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,003,357
of 7,722,452 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,470
of 3,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,945
of 229,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#65
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,722,452 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,340 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 229,555 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 171 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.