↓ Skip to main content

TSC-associated neuropsychiatric disorders (TAND): findings from the TOSCA natural history study

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
TSC-associated neuropsychiatric disorders (TAND): findings from the TOSCA natural history study
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0901-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petrus J. de Vries, Elena Belousova, Mirjana P. Benedik, Tom Carter, Vincent Cottin, Paolo Curatolo, Maria Dahlin, Lisa D’Amato, Guillaume B. d’Augères, José C. Ferreira, Martha Feucht, Carla Fladrowski, Christoph Hertzberg, Sergiusz Jozwiak, J. Chris Kingswood, John A. Lawson, Alfons Macaya, Ruben Marques, Rima Nabbout, Finbar O’Callaghan, Jiong Qin, Valentin Sander, Matthias Sauter, Seema Shah, Yukitoshi Takahashi, Renaud Touraine, Sotiris Youroukos, Bernard Zonnenberg, Anna C. Jansen, on behalf of TOSCA Consortium and TOSCA Investigators

Abstract

Most evidence for TSC-associated neuropsychiatric disorders (TAND) to date have come from small studies and case reports, and very little is known about TAND in adults. We explored baseline TAND data from the large-scale international TOSCA natural history study to compare childhood and adult patterns, describe age-based patterns, and explore genotype-TAND correlations. The study enrolled 2216 eligible participants with TSC from 170 sites across 31 countries at the data cut-off for the third interim analysis (data cut-off date: September 30, 2015). The most common behavioural problems (reported in > 10% of participants) were overactivity, sleep difficulties, impulsivity, anxiety, mood swings, severe aggression, depressed mood, self-injury, and obsessions. Psychiatric disorders included autism spectrum disorder (ASD, 21.1%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, 19.1%), anxiety disorder (9.7%), and depressive disorder (6.1%). Intelligence quotient (IQ) scores were available for 885 participants. Of these, 44.4% had normal IQ, while mild, moderate, severe, and profound degrees of intellectual disability (ID) were observed in 28.1, 15.1, 9.3, and 3.1%, respectively. Academic difficulties were identified in 58.6% of participants, and neuropsychological deficits (performance <5th percentile) in 55.7%. Significantly higher rates of overactivity and impulsivity were observed in children and higher rates of anxiety, depressed mood, mood swings, obsessions, psychosis and hallucinations were observed in adults. Genotype-TAND correlations showed a higher frequency of self-injury, ASD, academic difficulties and neuropsychological deficits in TSC2. Those with no mutations identified (NMI) showed a mixed pattern of TAND manifestations. Children and those with TSC2 had significantly higher rates of intellectual disability, suggesting that age and genotype comparisons should be interpreted with caution. These results emphasize the magnitude of TAND in TSC and the importance of evaluating for neuropsychiatric comorbidity in all children and adults with TSC, across TSC1 and TSC2 genotypes, as well as in those with no mutations identified. However, the high rates of unreported or missing TAND data in this study underline the fact that, even in expert centres, TAND remains underdiagnosed and potentially undertreated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 271 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Other 54 20%
Unknown 96 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 20%
Psychology 34 13%
Neuroscience 19 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 5%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 104 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,109,215
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,298
of 2,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,900
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#30
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 337,287 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.