↓ Skip to main content

Gray matter imaging in multiple sclerosis: what have we learned?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, December 2011
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Gray matter imaging in multiple sclerosis: what have we learned?
Published in
BMC Neurology, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-11-153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanneke E Hulst, Jeroen JG Geurts

Abstract

At the early onset of the 20th century, several studies already reported that the gray matter was implicated in the histopathology of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, as white matter pathology long received predominant attention in this disease, and histological staining techniques for detecting myelin in the gray matter were suboptimal, it was not until the beginning of the 21st century that the true extent and importance of gray matter pathology in MS was finally recognized. Gray matter damage was shown to be frequent and extensive, and more pronounced in the progressive disease phases. Several studies subsequently demonstrated that the histopathology of gray matter lesions differs from that of white matter lesions. Unfortunately, imaging of pathology in gray matter structures proved to be difficult, especially when using conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. However, with the recent introduction of several more advanced MRI techniques, the detection of cortical and subcortical damage in MS has considerably improved. This has important consequences for studying the clinical correlates of gray matter damage. In this review, we provide an overview of what has been learned about imaging of gray matter damage in MS, and offer a brief perspective with regards to future developments in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 148 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 22%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 15%
Neuroscience 22 14%
Psychology 11 7%
Physics and Astronomy 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 25 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,191,664
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#671
of 2,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,150
of 254,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 254,054 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.