↓ Skip to main content

The comparisons of phenotype and genotype between CADASIL and CADASIL-like patients and population-specific evaluation of CADASIL scale in China

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
The comparisons of phenotype and genotype between CADASIL and CADASIL-like patients and population-specific evaluation of CADASIL scale in China
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s10194-016-0646-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan He, Daiqi Chen, Xuefei Li, Zheng Hu, Zhiyuan Yu, Wei Wang, Xiang luo

Abstract

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is the most common form of hereditary stroke disorder caused by mutations in the NOTCH3 gene. Although CADASIL scale is a widely used tool to screen clinically suspected CADASIL patients, the differential effects of this scale in various populations remain unknown. 92 CADASIL-like patients and 24 CADASIL patients were selected based on CADASIL scale and gene tests. The clinical, genetic and radiological characteristics were analyzed. Based on the CADASIL scale, we first screened 116 suspected CADASIL patients, and detected 20 mutations in 24 CADASIL-patients (Specificity: 20.69 %). Surprisingly, we found that transient ischemic attack/stroke, migraine, cognitive decline, psychiatric disturbances and early onset age in CADASIL scale showed no differences between the CADASIL and the CADASIL-like patients (p > 0.05). Instead, recurrent cerebral ischemic events (58.33 %, p = 0.028) and positive family histories (p < 0.05) were more frequently observed in CADASIL patients. Moreover, compared with CADASIL-like patients (21.74 %), CADASIL patients demonstrated higher percentage of temporal pole involvements (58.33 %, p = 0.001), but not the external capsule involvements (66.67 %, p = 0.602), in MRI imaging. Further, we found that vascular risk factors could occur in both CADASIL patients and CADASIL-like patients, and therefore could not be used as the markers to differentiate the two groups in our study (p > 0.05). By performing DSA analysis, we for the first time identified dysplasia of cerebral blood vessels in CADASIL patients, which were detected more frequently in CADASIL patients (41.67 %) in comparison with CADASIL-like patients (8.69 %, p <0.01). Our data suggested that the efficacy of CADASIL scale to diagnose the disease varied with specific populations. Recurrent cerebral ischemic events, temporal pole involvements (but not the external capsule) in MRI imaging and dysplasia of cerebral blood vessels in DSA may be the new potential risk factors of the CADASIL scale suitable for Chinese patients. Gene testing by encephalopathy gene panel is expected to improve the accuracy of CADASIL differential diagnosis and increase the understanding of this disease in the future.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#21,186,729
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#1,311
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,936
of 336,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 336,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.