↓ Skip to main content

Is intracranial volume a suitable proxy for brain reserve?

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, September 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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Is intracranial volume a suitable proxy for brain reserve?
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13195-018-0408-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Catharina van Loenhoud, Colin Groot, Jacob William Vogel, Wiesje Maria van der Flier, Rik Ossenkoppele

Abstract

Brain reserve is a concept introduced to explain why Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with a greater brain volume prior to onset of pathology generally have better clinical outcomes. In this review, we provide a historical background of the emergence of brain reserve and discuss several aspects that need further clarification, including the dynamic or static nature of the concept and its underlying mechanisms and clinical effect. We then describe how brain reserve has been operationalized over the years, and critically evaluate the use of intracranial volume (ICV) as the most widely used proxy for brain reserve. Furthermore, we perform a meta-analysis showing that ICV is associated with higher cognitive performance after adjusting for the presence and amount of pathology. Although we acknowledge its imperfections, we conclude that the use of ICV as a proxy for brain reserve is currently warranted. However, further development of more optimal measures of brain reserve as well as a more clearly defined theoretical framework is essential.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 21%
Psychology 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 33 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#980,969
of 15,406,534 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#132
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,682
of 274,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,406,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 274,590 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 89% 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