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.
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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Screening for CCNF Mutations in a Chinese Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00185 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danyang Tian, Jiao Li, Lu Tang, Nan Zhang, Dongsheng Fan |
| Abstract |
Previous research has identified CCNF mutations in familial (FALS) and sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (SALS), as well as in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). The aim of our study was to measure the frequency of CCNF mutations in a Chinese population. In total, 78 FALS patients, 581 SALS patients and 584 controls were included. We found 19 missense mutations, nine synonymous mutations and two intron variants. According to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants, eight variants were judged to be pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. The frequency of such variants was 2.56% in FALS and 1.03% in SALS. In conclusion, CCNF mutations are common in FALS and SALS patients of Chinese origin, and further study is still needed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 4 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,419,368
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,272
of 4,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,967
of 329,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#85
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 329,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.