↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Performance Patterns in Healthy Individuals with Substantia Nigra Hyperechogenicity and Early Parkinson’s Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Cognitive Performance Patterns in Healthy Individuals with Substantia Nigra Hyperechogenicity and Early Parkinson’s Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rezzak Yilmaz, Susanne Gräber, Benjamin Roeben, Ulrike Suenkel, Anna-Katharina von Thaler, Sebastian Heinzel, Florian G. Metzger, Gerhard W. Eschweiler, Walter Maetzler, Daniela Berg, Inga Liepelt-Scarfone

Abstract

Introduction: Hyperechogenicity of the substantia nigra (SN+) is a risk marker for Parkinson's disease (PD) which can be detected before the diagnosis. In healthy individuals, SN+ has been associated with slight deficits in specific cognitive functions, suggesting cognitive impairment as a possible pre-diagnostic marker for PD. However, the pattern of cognitive deficits associated with SN+ has not yet been compared with those present in PD. Methods: Data of 262 healthy individuals with normal echogenicity (SN-) and 48 healthy individuals with SN+ were compared with 82 early stage PD patients using the "Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's disease" test battery. First, the test clusters (factors) were identified using a principal component analysis (PCA). Mean group performance of cognitive tests belonging to distinct factors, according to the PCA, and single subtest performances were compared using analyses of variance. Second, the number of individuals with abnormal cognitive performances (z-score < -1.0) were compared between groups. Results: Verbal memory, semantic and executive function, and praxis were identified as components of cognitive performances. The SN+ group performed significantly worse than the SN- group in tests assessing semantic and executive function, with a non-significant decrease in verbal memory. On the subtest level, individuals of the SN+ group scored significantly lower than the SN- group on the Boston Naming Test (BNT; p = 0.008). In all subtests, the percentages of PD patients with values below the cut-off for abnormal performance were higher than in the SN- group. Moreover, more individuals from the SN+ group scored below the cut-off in the BNT (SN- = 8.4%, SN+ = 20.8%, p = 0.01) and TMT-B (SN- = 6.9%, SN+ = 16.7%, p = 0.02), compared to the SN- group. Conclusion: This study confirms poorer performance of healthy individuals with SN+ compared to SN- in specific cognitive domains. However, against the SN- group, the cognitive profile of the SN+ group was not fully consistent with the profile of early PD patients. Our data argues that cognitive impairment associated with SN+ might differ slightly from that seen in early PD. Compensational mechanisms in the early phases of neurodegeneration, and the fact that only a subgroup of SN+ will develop PD, may partly explain these differences.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 19%
Psychology 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 17 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,212,148
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,729
of 4,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,835
of 306,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#38
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 306,451 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.